OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House met at a Quarter before Throe of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

STANDING ORDERS.

Mr. Betterton, Mr. Vaughan-Davies, Sir Arthur Fell, Mr. William Graham, Mr. Edward Kelly, Major M'Micking, Colonel Mildmay, Sir Newton Moore, Major Hugh O'Neill, Sir William Pearce, and Mr. John William Wilson were nominated Members of the Select Committee on Standing Orders—[Colonel, Gibbs.]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1920–21 (VOTE A).

Estimate presented,—of the number of men on the Establishment of the Army at Home and Abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, for the year 1920–21 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 22.]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1920–21 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).

Estimate presented,—showing the Vote on Account which is required for the year 1920–21 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 23.]

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE COALFIELD.

Mr. SITCH: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state whether the inquiry into the Hawne colliery pumping station, in the South Staffordshire area, promised before the Recess, has yet been held; and, if not, can he see his way to arrange for such inquiry to be insti-
tuted at an early date, having regard to the increased seriousness of the flooding in the districts concerned?

Mr. GEORGE THORNE: 22.
asked whether he can state the names of the committee appointed to inquire into mines drainage in the South Staffordshire coalfields; whether he can announce what are the terms of reference to the committee and what area will be included within the scope of the committee's investigation; and whether he can say when the committee will commence its sittings?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): A committee of enquiry has been appointed, consisting of Sir Richard Redmayne, K.C.B. (Chairman), Mr. Maurice Deacon, M.J.C.E., and my right hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace), with the following terms of reference:—
To enquire into the present position in regard to mines drainage in the South Staffordshire coalfield and advise as to the steps to be taken to ensure the future security of the mines and the proper industrial development of the district on an economic basis.
The area which will fall within the scope of the Committee's investigations will be that portion of the South Staffordshire coalfield which lies to the south of the Bentley fault. The preliminary work of collecting information is now in progress, and I understand that the Committee hope to begin their sittings early in March.

Mr. SITCH: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that numbers of the inhabitants of all classes in the Cradley Heath, Old Hill, and Quarry Bank districts of Staffordshire have been unable to procure supplies of domestic coal for some weeks past, to their discomfort and hardship; and whether he will order an immediate inquiry into the matter with the view to ensuring speedy improvement in the supply of this essential fuel?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The shortage of supplies of domestic coal in the Cradley Heath Old Hill and Quarry Bank disricts in Staffordshire is due to the flooding of the local coal mines from which these districts draw their supplies. All possible steps are being taken to obtain supplies from other sources.

WATER UNDERTAKINGS.

Mr. SITCH: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, if he has been approached by the Association of Midland Local Authorities for the purpose of securing the same 10s. reduction in the price of coal supplied to water undertakings as has already been allowed to gas and electricity concerns: whether the Board has been unable to accede to this application; and, if so, having regard to the dissatisfaction felt at that decision by numerous local authorities, he will state the reason for this preferential treatment in this matter allowed to the particular public supply companies indicated as compared with those undertakings engaged in the no loss essential supply of water?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Coal Mines Department have no record of a complaint from the Association of Midland Local Authorities. The differential treatment to which the hon. Member refers is consequent upon the application of the reduction of 10s. per ton in the price of coal for household or domestic purposes as from the 1st December last, to that proportion of the coal supplied to gas and electricity undertakings which is used for making gas or electricity for domestic or household purposes. While there is a close relation between the domestic purposes for which coal and gas and electricity are used, there is not such a close relation between coal and water. In the circumstances it was decided not to bring water works within the scope of this special arrangement.

GAS WORKS (COAL SHORTAGE).

Mr. MANVILLE: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the stock of coal now hold at the Coventry gas works is less than three days' requirements: whether this is due to the non-delivery by the railways of the quantities hitherto delivered and required by the Coventry gas works: whether he is aware that the Coventry gas works is only one of some 400 gas works throughout the country which have less than one week's supply of coal; and also whether he will take immediate steps to ensure that the coal requirements of Coventry gas works and of other gas works throughout the country will receive the immediate attention of the Coal Controller and the Ministry of
Transport, so as to prevent the failure of the gas supply, and the consequent closing of all factories dependent upon gas supply in these various towns?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend calls attention, and every possible effort is being made, in conjunction with the Ministries of Transport and Shipping, to relieve the situation.

Mr. MANVILLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the situation probably to-day, since this question has been printed, is that there is less than one day's reserve of coal, and that tomorrow morning some of the industries in the city must perforce be closed down? Can nothing be done to alleviate the situation?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware of the difficulties, and the matter has been receiving the most careful consideration during the week-end. I hope something will be done to relieve the situation in time.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does the hon. Gentleman think, so long as so much coal is being exported, he will be able to supply home consumption?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: A question is to be asked later, and a reply will be given showing what efforts are being made to deal with the difficulties of the situation.

Mr. STEVENS: Is he aware that the difficulty in the main is due to the breakdown of transport, because coal is being carried for long distances when it can be obtained almost on the spot?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware it is largely due to the difficulties of transport, but the difficulty of arrangement of the different areas is a very serious one, and it is not quite so easy as the hon. Gentleman seems to think.

COAL EXPORTS.

Colonel Sir J. REMNANT: (by Private Notice)
asked the Leader of the House if he is aware that exports of coal from the United Kingdom in January last exceeded the exports in any month since August last; and if it is the policy of the Government to permit exports of coal even though the inland requirements of
the industry, public utility works and households are not being fully met?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. It must be remembered that the question is not one of coal so much as it is one of transport coastwise and by rail, and for this reason: While the ouput of coal has been steadily improving it is yet much short of the pre-War rate and except in the export districts there are general shortages for home requirements.
Priority of supply has been given in the following order:

(a) Household and domestic supplies.
(b) Public utility undertakings.
(c) Rail ways.
(d) Industries.
Efforts, at the same time, have been made to transfer supplies from the districts where the surpluses exist to districts where the output is insufficient to meet home needs. Only the balance, after such transfer has been made, so far as transport has permitted, has been allowed for export. The difficulties of transport have not, however, made it possible so far to meet the necessary inland requirements, and it has become clear that more drastic steps are necessary to secure the movement of coal to areas which have a deficiency. It has, therefore, been decided to give to coastwise and railway movement of coal such priority as is necessary to secure that home demands are met as fully as possible. It will happen in cases that this priority wilt involve delays to other traffic, but if home demands in respect of coal are to be met this is clearly inevitable.

Mr. A. SHAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are instances where towns are situated within a mile of coal pits and the inhabitants are suffering from a coal famine and have to see thousands of tons of coal taken by rail to outside parts of the country, and is he further aware that Kilmarnock is one of these, and that nothing whatever is being done?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Mo, I was not aware of that and I have not heard anything special from Kilmarnock.

Mr. HOUSTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this country depends for its existence upon our export
trade and that one of the principal lines of export is coal, and that the remedy for the present state of affairs is greater output?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that statement can only be received with qualifications. The largest amount of export possible ought to be maintained, but we cannot allow either householders or industries to suffer.

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if some of the ships which are at present taking coal abroad were employed in coastwise traffic the extraordinary amount of congestion due to taking coal by rail to coast towns would be obviated and trucks would be available for inland traffic?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No. The hon. Member is mistaken. I was present at a conference where the whole question was gone into on Saturday. His remedy would only lead to further congestion at the ports where loading and discharging is now impossible.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that iron and steel works on the coast are standing idle although trucks are being used to ship coal from the collieries to the very ports at which these works are standing idle, and therefore it cannot be lack of trans port which accounts for the shortage of coal?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that quite follows because the arrangement of transport is very complicated, depending on the number of trains which can be passed over a particular line, very often a bottle neck. That is the very point which is now being gone into in complete detail by all the Departments concerned.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many more trains might be carried if they were worked at night?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member may be assured that, so far as the power of the Ministry of Transport is concerned, that is being done. It is a question, to some extent, of labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOYS FROM GERMANY AND HOLLAND.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, if he
will state the amount of toys imported from Germany arid from Holland in the months of December and January, and if those imported from Holland are entirely or almost entirely made in Germany?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): The value of toys registered as imported into the United Kingdom, and consigned from Germany and Holland respectively during the period specified were £102,587 from Germany, and £17,140 from Holland. It is impossible to say what proportion, if any, of the latter was of German origin.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFITEERING ACT.

CLOTHING (CONTROLLED PRICES).

Mr. HOLMES: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, whether the Wool Council submitted to him in the autumn of last year a scheme by which 25,000,000 yards of cloth for men's suits and a similar quantity for women's and children's clothing should be manufactured from wool issued at controlled price and should be costed at every stage so that at no point in production or distribution would more than a reasonable profit be yielded; whether he rejected the scheme on the ground that the Profiteering Act would keep down the price of clothing; and whether any action can be and is being taken under the Profiteering Act in this matter?

Sir A. GEDDES: In the summer of last year such a scheme was submitted, but the reasons for rejecting it were not primarily those suggested in the question. The Profiteering Act has been applied to all articles of wearing apparel, and I am satisfied that this has had a stabilising effect on the price of clothing.

Mr. HOLMES: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the reason for rejecting this scheme?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, with pleasure, but it would take rather long to elaborate it in full. In the first place, legislation would be necessary. In the next place, it would have meant a very large Department, with a very large number of officials, at very great cost to the Treasury. In the next place, it would have disorganised trade, at a moment
when there was very considerable difficulty in getting under way, by cutting across all existing contracts. It would have meant, further, a renewal of State control at a moment when freedom in connection with our export trade was most extremely desirable. It would have led to a very slight saving to the consumer, and hindered employment, and any slight benefit in the price of clothes would be entirely lost. The last point is that it would have been 18 months at least before a new suit under the scheme could have been available on the market.

Mr. HOLMES: Is it not surprising that the committee which inquired into this matter did not see fit to give all these reasons against it?

Sir A. GEDDES: I did not control the committee which issued a report on this matter. They stated that the Board of Trade reasons were those suggested in the question without asking the Board of Trade, so that I can only imagine that they found them out by some process of divination. This is the first time I have been asked, and I have now given the answer.

ROOMS AND HOUSES (RENTS).

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to cases of profiteering in the letting of rooms and houses; whether such cases are covered by the Profiteering Act of last Session; and, if not, whether he proposes to meet such cases by further legislation?

Sir A. GEDDES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Profiteering Act does not apply to rents charged for rooms and houses. As regards the remainder of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for South-port on February 12th.

Sir S. ROBERTS: If legislation is introduced will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making the Act operative from, say, the introduction of the Bill?

Sir A. GEDDES: I will certainly bring that suggestion to the notice of the Department concerned in this, which is not the Board of Trade, but the Ministry of Health.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Is he aware that, owing to the Rent Restriction Act, some tenants are living in one or two rooms in a large house for a greater weekly rent than is paid for the whole property, and does he consider that either reasonable or fair?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am afraid I am not quite in a position to enter into a discussion on the housing question. I do not in my own Department know about it; it falls within the scope of the Ministry of Health, and if my hon. Friend will put down a question to them, I have no doubt he will get an answer.

PROSECUTIONS.

Mr. SIMM: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of prosecutions under the Profiteering Act in which fines have been inflicted, the aggregate amount of such lines, the number of eases in which imprisonment has been inflicted, and the aggregate period of imprisonment?

Sir A. GEDDES: The reports received from local committees show that to the 31st January last lines amounting to £834 11s. had been imposed in 83 prosecutions under the Profiteering Act, in addition to which orders for the payment of costs amounting to £236 4s. had been made. No sentences to imprisonment have been imposed.

Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is satisfied with the way the Profiteering Act is working, and whether the Government propose to endeavour to introduce a more efficient Act to deal with this very urgent problem, especially in regard to building materials?

Captain LOSEBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these profiteering tribunals are in too many instances composed of interested persons with a complete lack of the sense of responsibility, to the discouragement of public-minded individuals, who incur all the expense of a prosecution, by awarding penalties which are quite inadequate?

Sir A. GEDDES: With regard to the first question, the announcement has already been made, I think, on two occasions—before Christmas and again since we met—that it is the intention of the Government to introduce an Amending Bill. That is, I hope, now within a very
short distance of becoming an accomplished fact. With regard to the second point, I am fully aware that some of the local committees are not very satisfactory, but it will be within the recollection of the House that at the time the Profiteering Bill was passing through it was felt by the majority of the House most desirable that the administration of the local part of the Act should be in the hands of local persons, and it is a matter of great difficulty for the Central Department to interfere with the selections made by local bodies to the local committees.

Mr. BILLING: Is he aware that in the main what we are suffering from is not the small profiteer, but the large combine, and what steps is he taking to deal with the cement combine, for example, which has raised cement from 18s. to 132s. a ton?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to give notice of those figures.

Mr. SIMM: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many sectional committees have been set up under the Profiteering Act to inquire into the causes of high prices, what trades these committees cover, the number of meetings held by each committee, and what recommendations, if any, have been made?

Sir A. GEDDES: Thirty-two Sub-committees have been appointed by the Central Committee to investigate various trades and commodities, including boots, brushes, building materials, clothing, cotton, chocolate, cement, drugs, dyeing, electric lamps, farriery, fish, furniture, glass, groceries, hardware, jams, motor fuel, matches, milk, meat oils and fats, pottery, road transport rates, soap, salt, tobacco, tools, weights and measures, wool, tops and yarns, and wallpaper. The number of meetings of each Committee vary from one to thirteen. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reports of the various Sub-committees which have been presented to Parliament.

Mr. SEDDON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how many times the Pottery Committee has been called together?

Sir A. GEDDES: I cannot carry in my head the number of meetings of each Committee, but if the hon. Member will
put down a question I will furnish the information.

Mr. SEDDON: I happen to have been on the Committee, and I have never been called yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

FROZEN MEAT (POPLAR BOARD OF GUARDIANS).

Mr. J. JONES: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that his Department has informed the Poplar Board of Guardians that in consequence of the plentiful supply of frozen meat in this country it is no longer necessary to supply the Board direct; whether he is also aware that since June, 1916, the Board have obtained their supplies of meat direct from the Queensland Government at prices lower than those quoted by contractors; and whether, in view of the fact that this arrangement has given satisfaction and has been in the interests of the ratepayers, he will allow it to continue?

Sir A. GEDDES: The arrangement to which the hon. Member refers was made in order to meet a special difficulty, and I do not think it desirable to authorise the continuance of that arrangement now that supplies of meat are ample.

Mr. JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair that the Poplar Board of Guardians should pay more for their meat than they can buy it from the Queensland Government?

Sir A. GEDDES: But I am not aware that anybody is preventing the Poplar Board of Guardians buying their meat from the Queensland Government if they can make such an arrangement.

Mr. JONES: A special arrangement was made, and your Department said it could not continue.

Sir A. GEDDES: That was a special arrangement to meet a special difficulty. If the Board of Trade is to become permanent butcher for the country it will require to be completely reorganised on a colossal scale.

Mr. JONES: Is it true that the Board of Trade entered into an arrangement under which they could get their meat
at a certain price, while the general public were allowed to be fleeced?

Sir A. GEDDES: No, Sir, I pay the same price for my meat as anybody else.

Oral Answers to Questions — POTASH (IMPORTS FROM GERMANY).

Sir R. COOPER: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many firms have been licensed to import potash from Germany; and what regulations have been imposed on licensed importers regarding the sale price or percentage of profit at which German potash may be resold?

Sir A. GEDDES: No import licences are required for the importation into this country of potash from Germany. Certain quantities of potash salts have been received from Germany by His Majesty's Government as part payment for food supplied to Germany. They are taken over from the British Government by the British Potash Company for resale under the authority of the Potash Distribution Committee, which was set up to regulate the prices and conditions of sale. Maximum prices to consumers have been fixed, and the profits of the British Potash Company are limited to 1 per cent. of the gross turnover of the contract plus one-third of any further profit, the remaining two-thirds reverting to the Government.

Sir R. COOPER: Is it a fact that the importation of this potash is really in the hands of one firm in this country?

Sir A. GEDDES: I do not know anything about the commercial importation of potash. No import licences are required, but in so far as we receive this in payment from Germany, the British Government is bringing it in.

Sir R. COOPER: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity and value of potash compounds, distinguishing those used for agricultural from those used for other industrial purposes, imported from Germany and Alsace since the Armistice: the ruling price of potash in Germany; and at what prices German potash compounds have been sold to the English public for industrial purposes?

Sir A. GEDDES: As the answer, to this question involves a statistical Table, I will, with the permission of the House,
have a statement circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRE-WAR DEBTS.

CZECHO-SLOVAKS AND AUSTRIAN NATIONALS.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, if British firms are compelled to pay to Austrians who have become Czecho-Slovaks pre-war debts due to them according to contract in sterling, His Majesty's Government can take any stops to secure equally favourable treatment of British firms to whom pre-war debts are due from Czecho-Slovaks, originally Austrians, especially in cases where such debts are stated in kronen, bearing in mind the depreciated Austrian currency and the fact that the provisions of the treaty with Austria as to debts do not apply to Czecho-Slovakia?

Sir A. GEDDES: As Czecho-Slovaks were our allies before negotiations for peace were entered into with Austria, it was, I think, obviously not possible to impose on them a provision varying the terms of their contracts by requiring them to pay their debts at the pre-war rate of exchange. The position is that if under contracts with Czecho-Slovaks debts were payable in kroner, they will remain payable in kroner, and if they were payable in sterling they will remain payable in sterling, whether the debts were owing to Czecho-Slovakia or to this country. I fully appreciate that the position is one of great difficulty for British firms who are owed large amounts of money by persons carrying on business in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, but I am afraid that it is one which the Government cannot remedy.

Mr. DENNISS: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the impossibility of securing settlement of pre-war debts from Austrian nationals on the basis laid down in the treaty of peace with Austria, and the fact that British firms stand to lose consider able sums thereby, notwithstanding the proposed partial distribution of Austrian assets here to meet the claims of British creditors, His Majesty's Government can now see their way to adopt the suggestion that any surplus realised from Ger man property and assets, after liquidating
British claims, should be utilised to meet unsatisfied British claims against Austrian nationals in respect of pre-war debts?

Sir A. GEDDES: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 24th November to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry. Any surplus assets on German account will be available for payment of claims by British nationals in respect of enemy Government action affecting their property in Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey, but the Treaty does not enable such assets to be applied for the payment of private debts.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLAX GROWING (IRELAND).

Mr. LYNN: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that owing to Government control there was a reduction of Irish acreage under flax of 50,000 acres last year; and whether, in view of the great scarcity of flax in all parts of the world, he will remove the control on flax in Ireland immediately so that farmers may be encouraged to put more land under flax this year?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am afraid I cannot agree with the suggestion made in the first part of the question. My information is that the area under flax in Ireland was in 1018 approximately 147,000 acres, and at the end of that year the Government were advised that, in view of the uncertainty as to the future of flax prices, the acreage planted in 1919 would probably fall to 50,000 acres unless the Government guaranteed a minimum price to the growers. That guarantee was given with the result that the area under flax in 1919 was approximately 107,000 acres. It has already been announced that His Majesty's Government do not propose to exercise any control or to give any guarantee in respect of the 1920 crop.

Mr. LYNN: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that there is to be an open market for flax in Ireland this year; in fact, that there will be the same open market for flax in Ireland as there is in Great Britain at present?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, Sir, the hon. Member is quite right; that is, on the 1920 crop.

Mr. LYNN: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of abolishing the grading system which has caused a good deal of discontent and which may result in a decreased acreage under flax this year?

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL TAX (CLERGYMEN).

Mr. LYNN: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is possible to make the same concession to clergymen as to doctors of remitting one-half of the tax on petrol which they use when engaged on professional duty?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to answer this question.' The whole question of the taxation of mechanically-propelled road vehicles is at present being considered by a Departmental Committee. The point mentioned by my hon. Friend will be taken into consideration by the Committee.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Cannot the doctors simply raise their fees?

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

GERMAN DYES.

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of dyes has been delivered to this country by Germany under the provisions of the Treaty of Peace; how much has been distributed to dye users; on what principle and by what agency has the distribution been carried out; what price has been charged; and what sum has been credited to Germany by the Reparation Commission?

Sir A. GEDDES: About 650 tons of dyes have actually been received from Germany under the Treaty and, with the exception of a small proportion reserved for the Dominions, practically the whole has been allocated to users so far as possible on the basis of their requirements. Distribution is now being carried out by the Central Importing Agency. The prices charged vary with the different classes of dyes, but are based on the values placed on the dyes by the German manufacturers in their stock lists, with allowances for the low German exchange rates. The
sum to be credited to Germany has not been finally settled by the Reparation Commissision.

Major WOOD: Who is responsible for the distribution of the dyes?

Sir A. GEDDES: The Committee of Dye Users.

DEBTS TO ENEMIES.

Colonel NEWMAN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, under the terms of the Peace Treaty, debts owing to a subject of this country by any enemy debtor are recoverable plus accrued interest at 5 per cent. per annum; whether a subject of this country is liable to like terms for debts due to an enemy creditor; and is he aware that at the outbreak of hostilities subjects of this country were refused permission to pay off their foreign obligations by handing the moneys over to the Government in satisfaction of the debt?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. No arrangements were in existence immediately after the outbreak of hostilities for payment to the Government of debts duo to enemies, but I am not aware of any case where, after the Board of Trade had power to vest property in the custodian, subjects of this country were refused permission to discharge their debts by payment to him.

Colonel NEWMAN: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by the word "immediately"?

Sir A. GEDDES: In the early weeks or months of the War due arrangements were made for the appointment of a custodian for these debts.

Sir E. CARSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has ascertained that debtors in this country have to pay 5 per cent. interest on debts due to enemies, and is not that a very curious incident, having regard to the fact that it would have been a breach of the law if they had paid these debts while the War war going on?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, I quite agree that there is some difficulty with regard to the cases where payment was not made at all, but early in the War the Government appointed a custodian for these
debts to whom payment could be made. There is no interest required on such debts where paid to the custodian.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

NORTH-EAST COAST AREA.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the stocks of finished iron and steel held by works in the North-East Coast area amounted to 90,000 tons on 6th February, as compared with 70,000 tons at the end of December and 30,000 tons at the end of June, 1919; and whether he can induce the railway companies concerned to adopt a three-shift system of working, in order more adequately to cope with this traffic?

Mr. NEAL: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 12th instant to a question asked by the hon. Member for Consett upon the same subject. I am making inquiries as to the second part of the question, but it must be understood that, unless traders to whom steel is consigned adopt similar methods of working in unloading the traffic, the available supply of wagons is, not necessarily increased by the railway companies working three shifts.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when representatives of the North-East Coast met the directors of the Railway Company on the 5th of this month they got an assurance from the directors that everything possible was being done, and that, notwithstanding that, the stocks on the North-East Coast are increasing threefold; and will the hon. Gentleman see that attention is given at once to this matter, otherwise a large number of works on the North-East Coast will be standing idle next week?

Mr. NEAL: The matter is receiving the most urgent and continuous attention of the Ministry of Transport and the North-East Railway.

FREE TRAVEL (EMPLOYES).

Mr. GILBERT: asked the Minister of Transport if it is the practice of the railway companies to grant all their employés free railway travel from their homes to their work; whether this point was considered or dealt with in the recent
settlement with the railway men and if free travel is continued under the agreement; and can he state if this practice applies to the London Tube and Underground railway systems?

Mr. NEAL: It is not the general practice to grant railway employés free railway travel from their homes to their work, but some railway companies do issue free tickets within limited areas on their own systems, and all companies issue tickets at reduced rates. The prevailing conditions have not been altered under the recent settlement, but the value of these concessions was not overlooked. So far as the London Tube and Underground systems are concerned, it is understood that their staffs generally are granted free tickets to enable them to travel to and from their work.

Mr. GILBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the relatives of railway employés are also given cheap tickets?

Mr. NEAL: No, I cannot.

RAILWAY POLICE.

Mr. GILBERT: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is proposed to recommend the railway companies who are now considering the question of the conditions of service of the railway police to apply the recommendations of the Des-borough Committee with respect to the formation of a federation on democratic lines and the adoption of a standardised scale of pay and allowances.

Mr. BILLING: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the discontent existing in the railway police departments owing to the methods adopted by the authorities in dealing with the question of standardisation; and whether he is prepared to allow the men's representatives to take part in the discussion of their future conditions and grant them facilities to form a rail-way police federation, particulars of which have already been submitted to the Ministry of Transport?

Mr. NEAL: The Minister of Transport has received certain representations from the railway police giving him the benefit of their views upon their future status and the position with reference to the railway companies. He is aware of the importance of the question, which
is being closely investigated by the railway companies in consultation with the Minister. The discussions have not yet reached the stage which makes it possible for me to give a more definite reply to the questions put by my hon. Friends. I shall be prepared shortly to see deputations of the men.

Mr. BILLING: Can the hon. Gentleman, arising out of Question 28, say approximately when he is prepared to receive this deputation; and will he give the House an assurance that he will make strong representations to his Chief as to the desirability of this matter having further attention?

Mr. NEAL: I shall be prepared to receive the deputation, and to consult with the men at the very earliest date if they will communicate with me. With regard to the latter part of the Question of my hon. Friend it is quite unnecessary to make strong representations to the Minister of Transport as he is quite awake to the importance of the subject.

CANALS AND INLAND WATERWAYS.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport, whether he is yet in a position to state the policy of the Ministry as to the future ownership and administration of canals and inland waterways; whether he is aware that the revised railway rates are likely to have the effect of driving heavy and bulky traffic off the water on to the railways; and whether he will cause a further revision to be made with a view to the distribution of traffic between railways and canals in accordance with their several capacities?

Mr. NEAL: I am not in a position to make any general statement as to any change in the present private ownership of canals and inland waterways, but I do not understand the hon. Member's apprehension that the recent increase in railway rates will have the effect of diverting traffic on to the railways. With a view to further consideration of the distribution of traffic between canals and railways, my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport, is proposing to appoint a Committee, of which he hopes the hon. Member will consent to act as Chairman, to consider what development of canals and waterways is practicable, having
regard to the financial position of the country at the moment.

Mr. INSKIP: Is the hon. Gentleman able to answer that part of the question which asks whether the Ministry of Transport has a policy with regard to the administration of the canals, and has not the Minister of Transport, after fifteen months' reflection, a policy of his own until the Committee reports?

An HON. MEMBER: The answer is in the negative!

Mr. NEAL: I am always glad to have assistance in answering supplementary questions, but that interjection is not an accurate answer. The policy of dealing with canals is a subject which is closely related to the greater policy of dealing with the railways and other forms of transport. The subject is receiving attention—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"]—and certainly needs detailed consideration by the Committee of which the right hon. Gentleman has asked the hon. Member for Ladywood to become chairman.

Mr. BILLING: Have not all these canals been bought up by the railway companies in the past for the purpose of shutting out the competition of water transport, and what steps has the hon. Gentleman's Chief taken to carry out the policy of the Prime Minister in this matter, a policy announced at the Election?

Mr. NEAL: It is not the fact that the whole of the canals, or the majority of them, are owned by the railway companies.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The key ones are!

Mr. NEAL: As to future policy in relation to canals, I fear I cannot add anything to what I have already said.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why do you not carry out the policy of the Railway Commission which reported about ten years ago. No action has yet been taken upon their report?

Mr. NEAL: To carry out that report in its entirety would involve the expenditure of many millions. The Minister, before advising the House to sanction such an expenditure, desires to be fully advised upon the question in its present relationship to all transport problems.

METROPOLITAN EXTENSION LINE.

Mr. GILBERT: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport, whether the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company has come to any decision as to reopening and working the Victoria and City line, which formerly supplied many parts in South London with railway services which were of great convenience to workers and residents of those districts; and whether he can press the railway company to at once reopen this line and all the stations upon it?

Mr. NEAL: The question of the re-opening of this line has been under the consideration of the Advisory Committee on London Traffic, and it is hoped to arrive at a definite conclusion at an early date.

RAILWAY WAGONS.

Captain COOTE: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport, whether any system for the more speedy notification to farmers of the arrival of empty trucks has yet been devised; and, if so, what steps are being taken to put it into execution?

Mr. NEAL: I understand that advices are given verbally, by post, or by telegram, according to the circumstances in each case, and very few complaints are being received. The question of installing telephones at the stations is being looked into, having regard to the cost and their probable utility in each case.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport how many railway trucks were completed during December and January; how many were returned from France during the same period; and how many are under construction at the present time?

Mr. NEAL: The information asked for in the first part of the question is not yet available, but I am obtaining it and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as possible. The number of railway-owned wagons returned from France in December and January was 2,279. The number of wagons for the building of which arrangements have been made by the Railway Companies is about 32,000, of which 15,000 are orders placed with outside firms.

LONDON STREET REPAIRS.

Viscount CURZON: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can take any action to accelerate the repairs to street surfaces in London?

Mr. NEAL: The execution of repairs to street surfaces in London is a matter entirely for the several local authorities, but representations have been made to these authorities with a view to securing acceleration.

Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that so far it has taken nearly two months to repair one-half of Knights-bridge?

Mr. NEAL: That is not a question with which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport can deal.

Mr. J. JONES: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us if there is any possibility of the poorer local authorities getting financial assistance from the Government to carry out repairs?

Mr. NEAL: I think that is a matter which should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

MOTOR VEHICLES (LEGISLATION).

Viscount CURZON: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can now state when it is proposed to amend the existing laws relating to the use of motor vehicles; and whether special legislation will be required?

Mr. NEAL: Until the Departmental Committee now sitting has presented its report, it is not possible to state when the House will be asked to consider the special legislation necessary to amend the existing laws relating to motor vehicles.

Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether the extracts and suggestions in the technical Press, referring to any alteration in the Act, have or have not any foundation in fact?

Mr. NEAL: I cannot anticipate the report of the Committee.

CHALK FARM RAILWAY STATIONS.

Major BARNETT: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Chalk Farm stations of the North London and London and North Western Railway Companies, which were closed during the war, are still closed to passenger traffic; and, in view of the grave inconvenience to the public, will he take steps to secure the reopening of these stations at an early date?

Mr. NEAL: I have been asked to answer this question. At the present time alterations are being carried out in connection with the widening of the London and North Western line between Queen's Park and Chalk Farm, resulting in Chalk Farm Station being remodelled, and the railway company state that during the process of these alterations it would be a very difficult matter to maintain a service of passenger trains on the slow lines between Willesden and Chalk Farm. The matter is, however, under the consideration of the Advisory Committee on London Traffic in connection with their general review of the stations closed during the War.

LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS COMPANY.

Mr. GILBERT: 35.
asked whether any arrangement was made last year with the General Omnibus Company, London, to guarantee or pay them any grant or subsidy when they put on London streets a number of motor-lorry omnibuses; if so, can he state what the agreement was and if any money has been paid to the company; and, if so, how much?

Mr. NEAL: No arrangement was made with the London General Omnibus Company to guarantee or pay them any grant or subsidy when motor-lorry omnibuses were put on to relieve the congestion of passenger traffic in London. The company have, however, made representations' to the Minister of Transport with regard to certain expenditure to which they have been put and, inasmuch as the matter is at present the subject of discussion, I am not able to make any statement.

LOCOMOTIVE MEN AND GOODS GUARDS.

Mr. WADDINGTON: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that excessively long hours are being worked in Lancashire by locomotive men and goods guards on the railway; and can he state when he expects to relieve the position and enable the men to have an actual eight-hour working day instead of, as in many cases at present, a working day of 12 to 15 hours?

Mr. NEAL: I have no reason to suppose that railway companies in Lancashire and elsewhere are not doing all that they can to reduce the hours worked by locomotive men and goods guards to
eight hours a day or as near thereto as may be possible. My hon. Friend will appreciate, I am sure, that the detailed working of shifts is not a matter which can be dealt with from Whitehall. My attention has not recently been called to any such long hours as are mentioned as being systematically worked, but I will pass the question to the railway company concerned if the hon. Member will supply me with the necessary information.

LIVE-STOCK CONSIGNMENTS.

Mr. G. TERRELL: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make arrangements so that discretion is allowed to all railway agents to accept small consignments of livestock when wagons are available for their carriage; and whether he is aware that the present arbitrary restrictions are the cause of great irritation and loss of time and money to farmers and create a feeling of hostility to the new Ministry.

Mr. NEAL: Reasonable discretion in matters of this kind is allowed to railway agents, but the governing factor is the necessity of using rolling stock to the best advantage. As the hon. Member is probably aware, livestock is conveyed in small, medium, or large wagons, and in country districts farmers often co-operate to fill a truck in cases where small consignments are concerned.

Mr. TERRELL: Will the hon. Gentleman see that these arbitrary restrictions are modified and that in these country districts local agents are given authority to accept small consignments?

Mr. NEAL: All these questions as to the detailed working of railways are matters for the railway companies themselves. It is quite impossible, and I do not think that the House would wish it if it were possible, that the Minister of Transport should attempt to deal with all these details as to the working of the railway system.

Mr. TERRELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a regulation which has been introduced since the railways came under the control of the Government?

Mr. NEAL: There is no regulation of which I am aware made by the Minister of Transport, which has the effect which my hon. Friend indicates.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS FROM GERMANY.

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: 38.
asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what number of passports from Germany to this country were applied for by Germans during the month of January?

The ADDITIONAL UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I am not in a position to give the required information since Germans do not apply to British authorities for passports.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BOLSHEVIST FORCES (GENERALS).

Mr. LAMBERT: 30.
asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if generals of the late Czarist regime are leading the Bolshevist forces in Russia; and, if so, has he information that there is a combination of Imperialist and Bolshevist forces against Foreign intervention in Russia?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.

POLISH FORCE.

Viscount CURZON: 40.
asked Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make, any statement giving the exact positions of the Polish force in Russia; whether their positions have been taken for strategical purposes; and, if so, whether for purposes of offence or defence?

The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. Churchill): I have been asked to reply. I would remind my noble and gallant Friend that Poland (an Allied country) is at war with the Soviet Government, and to give, in answer to this question, any information which may be in possession of His Majesty's Government would disclose intelligence of military value to the Bolsheviks.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether His Majesty's Military Mission in Poland is acting in a conciliatory manner or is it encouraging further offensives in Soviet Russia by
Polish arms, and is it acting on the instructions of the War Office?

Mr. CHURCHILL: H.M. Military Mission in Poland is not concerned with the policy of the Polish Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then may we take it that His Majesty's Military Mission in Poland has had nothing to do with the attack on Dvinsk on the raid on Jitomar?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly not. Any operations which Poland may engage in are settled by the head of the Polish State and by the Polish Government-Colonel WEDGWOOD: Without pres sure from or in consultation with our Mission?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly.

FINLAND AND POLAND.

Mr. SWAN: 51.
asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken by the Allies to encourage the Russian border states to make peace with Soviet Russia?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): His Majesty's Government have informed the Baltic States, Finland and Poland that the question of peace or war with Soviet Russia is one which they must decide according to their own judgment and on their own responsibility.

Mr. BILLING: May we take it that there is no pressure being brought to bear upon anybody to make the peace referred to?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer says that we are taking no responsibility in the matter one way or the other.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: Does my right hon. Friend think that we shall be able to maintain a position of absolute detachment whatever these Powers do?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The future must take care of itself. We are only dealing with the present. The policy of the Government in this respect has been very often and clearly put before the House.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that if they do not make peace we shall not be made responsible for defending them in case the War continues?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a problematical and hypothetical question, and I will answer it when the occasion arises.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not very serious that we should be committed to defending these people if they do not make peace without any advice on our part to make peace?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It might be serious, but how does my hon. and gallant Friend know that we are so doing?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We are asking you.

EGYPT (MILNER MISSION).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 41.
asked when the Milner Mission is expected to return from Egypt?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Lord Milner always hoped to be able to return in March, and there is no reason to believe that his plans will be altered.

PIGEON-FLYING RACES.

Lieut. - Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: 42.
asked if any agreement has now been reached with the French Government as regards the removal of restrictions on the release of homing pigeons in France in connection with pigeon-flying races?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, Sir, I have been informed in a note, dated 9th February, that a decree has been issued permitting the flight of foreign carrier pigeons in France under the laws and regulations which were in force before the 2nd of August, 1914. The liberation of carrier pigeons from England is accordingly allowed as before the declaration of War and under the same regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMENIAN MASSACRES.

Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: 43.
asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received news of the massacre of about 1,500 Armenians by Nationalist bands near Marash at the end of January; whether on 1st February two American citizens were murdered near Aintab; and whether he is aware that much indignation has been aroused among Europeans in Constantinople and
Asia Minor, and that they are calling out for protection against these continued outrages?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is, I regret to say, that similar information has been received from a private source by His Majesty's High Commissioner at Constantinople. No special information is available bearing on the last part of the question.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is it not a fact that both the English and French colonies have over and over again been warned of the possibility and probability of these massacres, and whether their appeals either for armed support by the Allies or provision for arming their own population in their own defence have not been neglected by the authorities both of one country and the other?

Sir J. D. REES: Is not the killing of American citizens a matter for the American Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In answer to the hon. Member (Mr. O'Connor), I have every sympathy with the motive of his question, but he must give me notice of a question of such detail.

Mr. O'CONNOR: May I ask a question in regard to which I think the hon. Gentleman has no need to ask for notice, whether these massacres do not confirm the Government in the frequently announced policy that none of the Christian subjects of Turkey, like the Armenians, shall be any longer, under the new arrangements with Turkey, be subjected to the possibility of massacre as in the past.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I wish it were possible to give an answer which would be satisfactory to my hon. Friend and myself.

Sir J. D. REES: Has the British Foreign Office any concern with the treatment of American citizens?

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that the Armenians went back to these districts under the encouragement of the British authorities?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must have notice of questions of that kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH WARSHIPS (COMMERCIAL REPRESENTATIVES).

Mr. DOYLE: 44.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Department how many representatives of British commercial houses have secured accommodation for transport abroad on His Majesty's warships, and what are their respective destinations; if any applications have been made by Foreign firms for similar concessions; if so, to what countries do they belong; and if any protest or objection has been raised by the naval authorities against the continuance of such an arrangement?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have received every assistance in this matter from the naval authorities, but unfortunately up to the present, all available accommodation in His Majesty's ships proceeding abroad has been required for Naval Officers proceeding to join their ships. As I anticipated, however, when replying on December 8th to an earlier question on this subject by the hon. Member, the Department of Overseas Trade has been able in most cases to arrange for passages on ordinary lines for representatives of trading firms who have applied for assistance in securing accommodation to overseas ports. No application have been received from foreign firms for passages on British men-of-war.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESOPOTAMIA.

(CIVIL AND MILITARY ADMINISTRATION.)

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the civil and military administration of Mesopotamia is still carried out by officers acting under the instructions of the Secretary of State for India, and in Palestine by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and whether any steps are being taken in Palestine as in Mesopotamia to replace military by civilian administration?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 64.
asked when a statement of Government policy in Mesopotamia may be expected; whether the War Office, Foreign Office, or India Office are responsible for the present administration in that country; and, if more than one department is responsible, which duties are performed by the officials responsible to these departments, respectively?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister regrets that he cannot be present to-day. The civil administration of Mesopotamia is carried out under the direction of the Secretary of State for India. The military administration of that area is controlled by the War Office. Palestine is under military administration, A civil administration cannot be effected until peace has been concluded between the Allies and Turkey and the status of the various parts of the former Ottoman Dominions decided.

Major Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of Palestine certain appointments are being made from among military officers of a more or less permanent character and some of these officers are not very well suited to the posts which they are being given? Will it be made clear that these appointments to either service are purely temporary pending the proper establishment of civil government?

Sir J. D. REES: Under the circumstances, are not military officers likely to make better administrators?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of the facts stated by my Noble Friend, but the answer which I have read shows that in the meantime there is nothing but a military administration and therefore the appointments must be temporary.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR CRIMINALS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state the proposed composition of the courts before which it is intended to arraign the German princes, statesmen, soldiers, and sailors whose surrender is demanded under Article 228 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany; where will be the location of these courts for the trial of the persons demanded by Great Britain; how long it is estimated that the trials will last; whether the trials will be held in public; what is the total number of persons whose surrender is demanded; and to whom will the cost of the proceedings be charged?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I am unable to answer these questions in detail at the present moment. The matters referred to are at the present moment under discussion with our allies and with the German Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a strong feeling amongst soldiers and sailors against the demand for the surrender of those high officers?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My answer is that while the subject is being discussed it is not suitable to discuss it in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM COMPANY.

Mr. DAWES: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will say how many shares of the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company were expropriated by the Government in 1917; what is the capital appreciation of the shares on their value on 10th February, 1920; what amount has been paid in dividends since the shares were taken over; whether the Government is officially represented on the board of direction of the company: if so, whether the representative reported the proposed increase in the price of petrol to the Government; and whether he received instructions to approve of such increase or otherwise?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): In connection with the support of the Foreign Exchanges, shares to the nominal value of 5,323,100 florins in the company were requisitioned in November, 1917, at the current market price of £51 per sub-share of 100 florins. All these shares have long ago been sold for the purpose for which they were bought, and no dividends are received on them. I understand the shares now stand at £89. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the negative and the remainder does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUNJAB (DISTURBANCES)

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 50.
asked the Prime Minister, what action His Majesty's Government intend to take on the Report of the disturbances in the Punjab in April 1919 (Cmd. 534)?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The extract from the Punjab Government's Report to, the Government of India, published as Cmd. 534, is merely a narrative of events. Until the Committee now sitting in India under Lord Hunter to enquire into the disturbances in Bombay Presidency and Delhi, as well as those in the Punjab, has
reported to the Government of India, and the Government of India have expressed their views to the Secretary of State it would obviously be improper to take any action.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Report of Lord Hunter's Committee be laid upon the table of the House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, I have no doubt, but perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put a question to the Secretary of State for India.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when the Secretary of State for India will be in his place in the House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, he is not well, but I think it will be a question of only a week or two before he will be back.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

TRAINING FACILITIES FOR DISABLED MEN.

Captain COOTE: 52.
asked the Prime Minister, what are the steps stated by him to have been taken in conjunction with the Minister of Labour to expedite the provisions of training facilities for disabled men?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The following steps have been taken in consultation with the Departments concerned as being the best means of dealing with remediable difficulties in the acquisition, adaptation and equipment of training centres for disabled men:—

(1) In cases of urgency the Director-General of Lands, is authorised by arrangement with the Treasury—under certain conditions to purchase or hire factories in Great Britain at the request of the Ministry of Labour without prior reference to the Treasury.
(2) The power of taking possession of any land, including buildings, required for training purposes which was conferred on the Minister of Pensions under the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1918, has been
509
transferred to the Minister of Labour.
(3) The Office of Works have been authorised to proceed within certain financial limits with repairs and alterations necessary at premises in future acquired for training, without prior Treasury sanction.
(4) The Ministry of Labour have been authorised as a temporary measure under certain conditions to carry out local purchase of equipment and material through their local officers.
(5) The Treasury have authorised the placing of substantial orders for equipment and material in advance of ascertained detail requirements.

TRAINING FACILITIES.

Captain COOTE: 53.
asked the Prime Minister, whether the Civil Liabilities Committee have declared their inability to assist disabled men who have been trained under a scheme worked by the Ministry of Pensions or the Ministry of Labour; and whether, seeing that it is a waste of public money to train a man for any employment unless he be assisted, whore necessary, to prosper in that employment, he will see that the Treasury be empowered to provide the Civil Liabilities Committee with funds for this purpose?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The purpose of the Civil Liabilities Fund is to provide assistance to men in re-establishing themselves in a business which was lost to them owing to military service. On the other hand, the object of the training allowances is to fit men for skilled employment. It is, therefore, apparent that the two forms of assistance are quite unconnected with each other. What is done under the present scheme as a supplement to the training allowances when the period of training is over, is to help in the provision of tools to the trained man, and that is done up to a sum of £10. It ought to be added that at the end of the period of training the man also receives a sum representing an allowance of 5s. per week which is granted as a bonus for efficiency.

Captain COOTE: What is a man to do if he has been trained in some occupation that he could take up on his own? It is not a question of finding employment. Ought he not to have a grant to enable him to start a business of his own?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend cannot expect me to answer questions of detail. Perhaps he will put a Question to the Ministry of Labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR TRAFIC (PROHIBITION).

Sir J. D. REES: 54.
asked the Prime Minister, whether he is aware of the indignation and resentment which has been aroused in the public mind by the organised attempts which are now being made against the personal liberties of the people of this Country by Foreign prohibition agitators; and whether, having regard to the effect of such agitation upon the already sensitive labour situation, any steps can be taken to deal with the movement before it sustains further dangerous developments?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The Government does not contemplate any special measures in the direction suggested.

Mr. BILLING: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the somewhat sinister suggestion of the Prime Minister as to the grave position of the Bolshevik movement in this country, and what steps, if any, are the Home Office taking?

Mr. SHORTT: That question does not arise out of the answer.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman make an appeal to the Prime Minister to be a little more explicit to the House when he addresses it?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT OFFICES (REDUCTION OF STAFFS).

Lieut.-Colonel ASSHETON POW-NALL: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the heading Other Departments in the monthly figures recently published with regard to the number of officials employed on 1st
December, 1919; whether the strength given, 47,736, is practically the same as the number shown on 1st August, 1919, 47,759; whether he can state which are the principal offices given under the heading of Other Departments; and whether steps can be taken to expedite the reduction of the staffs in question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In all, 131 Departments are comprised under the heading Other Departments in these Returns. They include Departments, the staffs of which were reduced during the period in question and Departments for which increased staffs have had to be provided to discharge new or increasing functions, e.g., Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Health (for housing work). The aggregate figures quoted do not, therefore, reveal the reductions actually made, amounting to over 1,900, but only the net result over all. The principal Departments included under the heading Other Departments are the Ministry of Health, Office of Works, Board of Education, Ministry of Shipping, Home Office, Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland).

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MISSION TO VATICAN.

Mr. LYNN: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state the decision of the Cabinet with regard to the British mission to the Vatican?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Cabinet have not yet come to a final decision with regard to this matter, some communications, which have been called for, being still expected with regard to it.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there will be many objections to the removal of this mission?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already explained to the House the reason for the delay. We are asking the opinions of some of our Dominions.

Sir E. CARSON: Could my right hon. Friend tell us what the mission does there now that the war is over?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I should like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COINAGE.

Sir HARRY BR1TTAIN: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government would consider making a specific demand, with penalty for non-observance, of all sovereigns and half-sovereigns which are still in private possession?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it would be desirable to adopt this suggestion, which would require special legislation.

Major O'NEILL: Have the Government any means of estimating the quantity of these coins held by the public in this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think we have any means of estimating the quantity with any sort of accuracy, but I do not think it would represent a very large sum.

Mr. HOLMES: Have not the joint stock banks been made to pay considerable sums in gold to the Bank of England from their own resources?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I believe some gold has been paid over by the joint stock banks.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 60.
asked the Prime Minister what was the cost incurred by the Government in connection with the visit of the British delegation to the Inter national Labour Conference at Washington?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The accounts are not yet complete, but I understand that it is not expected that the total expenditure will exceed £6,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSING TRADE (HOURS OF OPENING).

Sir J. D. REES: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a deputation of miners and other workers in the Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire, introduced by the late hon. Member for Horncastle, waited upon the Central Control Board on 22nd January and
urged that the war-time hours of opening of licensed houses should be extended, and especially that entire closing on Sundays should be brought to an end: whether he is aware that the deputation was informed that behind the board was the fact that the Government had announced its intention to introduce legislation for the liquor trade in time of peace and that it was the board's duty, as at present instructed, not to relax materially existing restrictions; if so, will he say under whose instructions the board is acting; and, if such instruction emanates from any Government Department, will he give the House the precise terms in which it is contained?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The question correctly states the position. In acting on the lines described in the second paragraph, the board are carrying out the instructions of the Government.

Sir J. D. REES: Can the hon. Gentleman say what those instructions are?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have said they are correctly stated in the question. The words used in the second paragraph are the ones I have particularly in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the City Council of Hull protesting against the abnormally high prices of building materials and urging the necessity of an inquiry; what action he intends taking; and whether anything can be done to immediately fix maximum prices on the principal building materials while waiting for the Report of the Committee now sitting to deal with a portion of the problem.

Sir ALFRED YEO: 97.
asked the Minister of Health whether any action had been taken in regard to the allegations of profiteering in the building trade; and, if not, is it his intention to take action immediately, in view of the effect upon the speedy building of houses?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have been asked to reply to these questions. Resolutions
have been received from several sources calling attention to the high prices of building materials. A Sub-committee has been appointed under the Profiteering Act to inquire into the cost and profits made in the production of building materials, and I accordingly propose to await the report of the Committee before deciding whether maximum prices should be fixed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 63.
asked the Prime Minister when the Vote for the estimated expenses of the British section of the Council of the League of Nations will be laid before Parliament; and will these expenses be shown on a separate Vote?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): Provision was made for these expenses for the current year in the Supplementary Estimate for Diplomatic and Consular Services presented in July last (House of Commons Paper 140). Provision for next year will be made on a separate-head on the same Vote in the Estimates for 1920–21.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Shall we have no opportunity of discussing the League of Nations and matters pertaining thereto other than on the Foreign Office Estimate?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it will be more convenient to take the item under the Foreign Office Vote, which will be so framed as to enable these questions to be discussed in Supply.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Shall we be able to discuss questions of policy on the Vote?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it follows that if the amount is stated in the Estimate as for the League of Nations, the Government would not refuse to discuss questions of policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — BELGIUM (TRADE RELATIONS).

Captain BOWYER: 65.
asked the Prime Minister, whether he is aware that the resumption of trade relations between this country and Belgium is in many
cases being hindered by the fact that Belgian nationals find it impossible to discharge their debt to nationals of this country incurred before the War owing to the fact that the Belgian Government under the stress of war commandeered their nationals' goods or factories and have not yet paid any compensation or owing to the, action of the enemy for which no compensation has yet been made; and whether he can see his way to bring pressure to bear on the Belgian Government to make compensation to their nationals in such cases where liability to pay arises through the commandeering of goods by that Government and to obtain speedy payment from Germany in such cases as are the result of enemy action, in order to hasten the return to normal trade relations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: This question raises a matter of Belgian domestic policy, and it would not, therefore, be proper for me to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRIAL BY JURY.

Sir E. CARSON: 66.
asked the Lord Privy Seal, when it is intended to restore the right of trial by jury in civil cases; and whether any reason now exists for depriving the subjects of this long established right which was suspended during the War.

Mr. BONAR LAW: As my right hon. Friend knows, the present position will come to an end six months after the termination of the War, and the Government do not think that in these circumstances special legislation is necessary. There are provisions now which enable a jury to be empannelled in special circumstances.

Captain REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer apply to Ireland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It applies to whatever part of the country the Bill operates in.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAT SKINS.

Colonel YATE: 70.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he has been able yet
to find any purpose for the use of rat skins so as to create a market for these skins as an incentive to the destruction of rats?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Several attempts have been made to turn rat skins to profitable account and develop an industry that might, by creating a market, serve an additional incentive to rat destruction. Up to the present time efforts have not proved successful, and from enquiries made it appears that the value of the skins when cured is not sufficient to compensate for the labour of preparing them

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (CEREAL AND ROOT CULTIVATION).

Mr. SHORT: 67
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (1) if he can state the total acreage in the United Kingdom devoted to the production of wheat, oats and potatoes in 1918 and 1919 respectively; (2) whether he will issue a comparative statement showing the total acreage devoted in 1918 and 1919, respectively, to production of wheat, barley, oats, meadow hay, potatoes, mangels, and turnips: and, further, the yield or estimated yield per year?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): Statements giving the desired information for England and Wales have already been issued by the Ministry, and I shall be happy to send copies to the hon. Member, together with similar information for the United Kingdom.

Mr. LAMBERT: 69.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, what was the estimated consumption by the United Kingdom during the year 1919 of wheat, barley, oats, beef, mutton, bacon, butter, and cheese; and what are the proportions of these products imported from overseas and produced at home?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I have been asked to reply. As the answer is in the form of a statistical table I propose, with the permission of the House, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the table referred:—

Commodity.
Estimated total Consumption.
Proportion of Home-Grown and Imported produce included.


Homegrown.
Imported.



Tons.
Per cent.
Per cent.


Wheat
7,395,000
27
73


Barley
1,956,000
64
36


Oats
4,297,000
92
8


Beef and Veal.
995,000
66
34


Mutton and Lamb.
368,000
57
43


Bacon and Hams.
447,000
19
81


Butter
180,000
58
42


Cheese
145,000
30
70


NOTES:—Cereals.—The quantities are given after deduction for seed and in the case of wheat, for tailings also.


Bacon.—The quantities given are for bacon as smoked or dried.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST ANGLIA (SUGAR, BEET INDUSTRY).

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 71.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the exceptional suitability of East Anglia for growing sugar beet, the Board of Agriculture are taking any steps to bring about the reopening of the Cantley sugar factory; whether this factory now contains the most up-to-date sugar-refining machinery in Great Britain; and whether there is any probability of this factory being dismantled and the machinery sent over to Holland.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The object which the Ministry have in view is to ascertain whether the sugar beet industry can be made profitable in England, and they consider it essential to carry out an experiment under the most favourable conditions. For this purpose the Kelham Estate has been secured on which it is proposed in due course to erect a factory to deal with the sugar beet produced in the area and one which will be equipped on the most approved lines. In the present state of the public funds there is little chance of obtaining further grants from the Government should the contemplated experiment prove unsuc-
cessful, and the Ministry are not disposed to prejudice the scheme at the outset by the purchase of a factory the design and situation of which are, in their opinion, unsuitable. The Ministry have been advised that the machinery at Cantley is not of the most efficient type, and that to bring the equipment of the factory up to modern requirements would involve a very heavy expenditure. The Ministry have no information regarding the dismantling of the factory and the transfer of the machinery to Holland.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: How soon will the factory at Kelham be ready—will it be this year?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot say exactly, but I hope very soon.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH LIVESTOCK TRADE.

Captain REDMOND: (by Private Notice)
asked the Food Controller whether he is aware of the serious injury the Order recently issued by the Ministry of Food prohibiting the landing of Irish livestock at British ports on Sundays will cause both the Irish shipping and livestock interests; and, in view of representations to this effect made to him by the interests involved, and the Chambers of Commerce of Dublin, Cork, and Water-ford, he will have the Order instantly withdrawn to enable livestock traffic to resume its usual course next week-end?

Mr. McCURDY: No Order has been issued by the Food Controller prohibiting the landing of Irish livestock at British ports on Sundays. After consultation with the representatives of the Irish shippers at Birkenhead, and in order to prevent the necessity of Ministry of Food officials working seven days a week, it was recently determined that fat stock would not be accepted for slaughter by the Ministry between midnight Saturday and midnight Sunday. There was nothing in that arrangement to prevent Irish consignors from sending their stock forward, provided that they made the necessary arrangements for the custody and keep of the stock. The Food Controller sent a representative to Ireland last week, and it was understood that all parties were reasonably satisfied with this arrangement. I am now informed that the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board has issued a Press notice closing the Port of
Birkenhead to Irish cattle from noon on Saturday until 6 a.m. on Monday. The Food Controller has no power to interfere with the discretion of the Port Authority in this respect, but he is anxious to secure some arrangement consonant with the practices normally adopted in Ireland without forcing an undue amount of overtime work on the dock employees, and he is communicating with the Minister of Transport on this point.

Captain REDMOND: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to state that he does not regard Sunday as between midnight on Saturday and midnight on Sunday, and does he furthermore desire to state that were it not for the order issued by the Ministry of Food fat livestock would still be going from Ireland to Liverpool, and would land there and be slaughtered on the Sunday? If that is not issuing an order prohibiting livestock from landing in a British port on Sunday I should like to know from him what is. Further, I should like to ask on whose advice and for what purpose was this order made? Why interfere with the existing state of affairs? What, was wrong with the conditions that prevailed?

Mr. McCURDY: I cannot without notice state upon whose advice these steps were taken which I have detailed. With regard to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's other questions, so far as they are questions of fact I think he will find that they are answered in the reply I have given. So far as they are questions of opinion as to whether securing one day's rest in seven necessitates some cessation of the importation of cattle, I cannot argue with him at short notice.

Captain REDMOND: If the Irish cattle trade is willing to find the necessary means of bringing these animals to Birkenhead as they have before, will the Ministry of Food facilitate them in every possible way?

Mr. McCURDY: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE CONFERENCE.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister whether (1) it is true as stated in the press that
the Allies have abandoned their demand for the surrender of German war criminals: (2) it is true that a Note has been received from the United States Government expressing dissent from the last Allied proposals made for the settlement of the Adriatic question and complaining that they were not consulted before such proposals were made; (3) it is true that the Allies have decided to leave the Turks in possession of Constantinople and a large part of Armenia including Cilicia?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I must ask my noble Friend and the House not to expect an answer at the present stage to any questions which are under the consideration of the Peace Conference from day to day. The premature publication or discussion of parts of a settlement dealing with peace with Turkey as a whole can have no other effect than to make the work of the Peace Conference much more difficult. As regards the demand for the surrender of war criminals a communication has been addressed to the German Government and this will be published as soon as we know that it has been put into the hands of the German Government.

Lord R. CECIL: Can my right hon. Friend not give us any information, particularly on the last part of the question? I would not have put the question except that it has been stated very positively in telegrams which appear in the Press this morning from Paris and Berlin.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. I saw the communications in the Press. The Government and the Conference regret it, and could not understand it. But there is a great difference between absolutely unauthorised statements, which may or may not be true, which appear in the Press. and discussions in the House of Commons. As regards the last question, obviously till the whole of the Turkish Treaty is finished that is the last question I could possibly answer.

Mr. O'CONNOR: In view of these rumours, which alarm and shock public opinion, will the Government adhere to the policy several times announced by the Head of the Government, and I think by the right hon. Gentleman himself, that he does not intend to return to the barbarous rule of the Turk, Christian peoples who have been massacred?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure the hon. I Member and the House will realise that we would gladly answer any questions which we can answer without endangering the public interest. A Treaty cannot be made by the House of Commons, it can only be made by representatives entrusted with the task by the House.

Sir E. CARSON: Is there any presumption that the statement is true because it appears in the Press?

Lord R. CECIL: I quite recognise the difficulty in which my right hon. Friend is placed and I am sure he will believe me that I do not wish to press him unduly, but may I ask him to take into consideration the very great public anxiety there is in certain quarters on the question raised in the last Question I put to him, and whether he will take the earliest opportunity of giving information to the House which will allay that anxiety?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it is possible for me to say more than I have said. Nobody knows better than my noble Friend that we must make a Treaty as a whole. I cannot imagine anything worse than to state publicly that arrangements have been made on a particular part of it before the Turkish people themselves know what the total arrangement is.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not a fact that only last week in this particular area fifteen hundred people were killed by the Young Turks, and unless we know where we are more people will be massacred?

Mr. BONAR LAW: All that is very deplorable, but I cannot see how a discussion on a possible Treaty is going to help them.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, as regards the surrender of German criminals, that when the discussion came on last week in the House there was universal agreement that the German criminals should be given up subject only to questions of detail as to how they were to be treated?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have said we have sent a formal Note to the German Government. I would gladly read it to the House now, but in our opinion it would not be courteous to do so until we knew that it was in the hands of the German Govern-
ment. I believe that will be the case tonight, and the document itself, in that case, will probably be published in the Press to-morrow morning.

Mr. MacVEAGH: When these negotiations are finally completed, will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to issue a White Paper setting out in parallel columns on one side the final terms and on the other side the election pledges given by the Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister himself recommended some enterprising newspapers to take that course. I make the same recommendation now.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the Government publish, as soon as possible, the Note of the United States Government and the Government's reply?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend must know that nothing could be more discourteous than to publish one document when an exchange of Notes is taking place. We must wait until they are all completed.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

IRELAND.

On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the administration of Ireland by the Government, and to move a Resolution.—[Captain Redmond.]

AIR SERVICE.

On going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, to call attention to the, Government's policy in regard to the future of the Air Service, and to move a Resolution.—[Lieut.-Colonel Burgoyne.]

EX-SERVICE MEN (RESETTLEMENT).

On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the provision of land and of work for ex-Service men, and to move a Resolution.—[Major Edwards.]

WAR STORES (DISPOSAL).

On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the disposal of War stores, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir Richard Cooper.]

IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES COMMISSION.

On going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, to call attention to the resentment aroused among the relatives of many fallen soldiers at the attitude of the Imperial War Graves Commission, and to move a Resolution.—[Colonel Sir J. Remnant.]

MILITARY OFFENCES.

On going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, to call attention to the continued imprisonment of soldiers for offences against military regulations in time of war, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Lawson.]

PEMBROKE DOCKYARD.

On going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, to call attention to the policy of the Government with regard to Pembroke Dockyard, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir Evan Jones.]

FOREIGN EXCHANGE.

On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the state of Foreign Exchange, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Hopkins.]

BILLS PRESENTED.

DOGS' PROTECTION BILL,

"to prohibit the vivisection of Dogs." Presented by Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: supported by Sir John Butcher and Mr. Frederick Green; to be read a second time upon Friday, 19th March, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL,

"to amend the Law in respect of Insurance against Unemployment." Presented by Sir ROBERT HONXE; supported by Mr. Solicitor-General and Mr. Wardle: to be read a second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL,

"to authorise the enfranchisement of the sites of Places of Worship held under lease." Presented by Mr. HINDS; to be read a second time upon Friday, 12th March, and to be printed. [Bill 28.]

TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL,

"to amend the Law with respect to the payment of rates on Tithe-Rent
charge attached to a benefice." Presented by Lieut.-Colonel WALTER GUINNESS: supported by Major Hills, Lieut. Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare, Major Earl Winterton, Major Edward Wood, and Brigadier-General Colvin: to be read a second time upon Friday, 7th May, and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

TEMPERANCE (WALES) BILL,

"to promote Temperance in Wales by conferring on the electors in prescribed areas control over the grant and renewal of licenses, by restricting the hours of opening of licensed premises for the sale of intoxicating beverages, by amending the Law relating to clubs, and by other provisions incidental thereto." Presented by Mr. SIDNEY ROBINSON; to be read a second time upon Friday, 26th March, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

Orders of the Day — WAR EMERGENCY LAWS (CONTINUANCE) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I beg to move,
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Perhaps it would be an exaggeration to say that this Bill, like some others, was almost if not quite the most attractive of all Bills presented to the House last Session. It would also be a little inaccurate, because the present War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill is not the same as the Bill which excited so much cheerfulness in October and November last. The earlier Bill, as the House is aware, had been drafted a long time before it was introduced. It was introduced a long time before the Debate on the Second Reading was reached. When the Debate on the Second Reading was reached, as I at once announced, much that the draft Bill contained had become unnecessary through lapse of time. In the subsequent and frequent discussions in Committee, where there was never any asperity and often there was no quorum, what was left of the Bill was, by common consent, pruned and cut down until it could not at that time be cut down any further. Two more months have gone by and—such is the healing influence of time—the present Bill not only begins where the old Bill left off, but it exhibits an even more modest and attenuated form. There are some new editions—bad ones—which bear on their title page the words, "Revised, corrected and considerably enlarged." There are other new editions—good ones—which bear the words, "Revised, corrected and considerably abbreviated." I am glad to think that the present Bill belongs to the second and more meritorious class. I need not dwell on the fact that some Bill of the kind was and is necessary. This Bill has often been spoken of and written of as if it were a Bill to continue the Defence of the Realm Regulations. That is a complete misrepresentation of the Bill. It consists of two parts. The first and, perhaps, the
main part, consists of statutory enactments which it is proposed to continue for a further period until the transition between peace and war has been, I will not say completed, but further entered upon. It is only the concluding portion of the Bill which consists of Defence of the Realm Regulations which it is proposed to continue. The House is aware that under the Termination of the War (Definition) Act, the War as a whole does not come to an end until an Order in Council is made under the terms of that Act declaring that it has come to an end. It is quite true that a little time ago, after the ratification of the Peace with Germany, another Order in Council contemplated by that Act of Parliament in another Sub-section was made, declaring that War was over as between this country and Germany The larger Order in Council still remains to be made, and it cannot be made until the requisite legislation or provision has been passed which will provide that these Defence of the Realm Regulations which are necessary may continue, notwithstanding that the war has practically ended. I say that because hon. Members are perfectly well aware that, with the termination of the War as a whole, the Defence of the Realm Regulations will automatically come to an end.
May I add a few words upon the large changes which took place in Committee in the predecessor of this Bill. I will mention only two. First of all, as the Bill was originally drafted there was a difference of period for the enactments that it was proposed to continue and for the regulations that it was proposed to continue. After a good deal of discussion the Committee came to the conclusion that the simple and better course would be that both the enactments and the regulations that it was proposed to provided for should come to an end upon the 31st day of August next. That date accordingly is provided in the Bill. I must, however, add a word of warning in regard to that date. So far as the regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act are concerned that date is not to be the date to which they will certainly continue. It is the date beyond which they cannot continue, and there is an expressed power in the Bill to revoke any one of these continued regulations as soon as it appears consistent with the national interest to do so. I hope, therefore, it
will not be suggested or understood that in continuing these regulations, with the outside limit of 31st August, we are of necessity continuing them or any of them until that date.
There was another important step taken in Committee. Some observation was excited by the penalties which were provided in the original Bill and the argument was made that, although during the period of actual hostilities very severe penalties might be right, less penalties would be sufficient in the transition period between peace and war. The Committee took that view, and accordingly in the Bill as it now stands there are no offences except offences that can be tried by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and there is no penalty of imprisonment provided which goes beyond a period of three months. I might explain very briefly the few respects in which the Bill as it is now presented differs from the Bill as it was left by the Standing Committtee at the close of its last sitting. There are one or two amendments of a purely drafting character and apart from these amendments the changes are these: In the first schedule, which contains not the regulations but the Statutes, the Injuries in War (Compensation) Acts have been omittted, because they are not longer required. The Public Authorities and Bodies (Loan) Act, 1916, has been omitted because as similar provisions are contained in Section 8 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, that Act has become unnecessary. What was Clause 2 of the Bill and the Second Schedule have been omitted altogether. We were able to omit these because they refere to two sections of the Naval Discipline Act which are no longer required by the Admiralty. In the Third Schedule which refers to the Regulations, Regulation 39, dealing with pilotage, and Regulation 55A, relating to special police areas, have been omitted because it is thought they are no longer required. In addition to these slight alterations limitations have been introduced in the third column of the Schedule referring to Regulation 5A and 6A. These regulations have to do with control of highways in certain events and the control of factories in certain events, and the limitations we have introduced are by way of giving effect to promises which were made in Committee. In this case the limiting words reduce and do not enlarge what was otherwise contained in the Bill.
Finally Regulation 35A has been restored. That is the Regulation which gives power to make rules for explosive factories and stores. It has been restored because its omission was due to an error in Committee. The necessity for the continuance of that particular regulation is shown by the serious accident which lately occurred in one of the factories used for breaking up ammunition. In the limitation as to the continuance of Regulation 15 (c) a reference to requisitions has been introduced as well as to contracts, because a question might arise whether that which was obtained was obtained by requisition or by contract. The fact of the matter is that we have still further and in many substantial respects reduced this Bill beyond the very modest dimensions which it had reached as a result of the deliberations in Committee last year. It now contains, as we believe, nothing which is unnecessary. The penalties are severely cut down and the period of time beyond which not one of these regulations can be continued is limited to the 31st August next. In these circumstances, and in conformity with the understanding which was arrived at between both sides of the House on the closing days of last Session, I trust that we may now with all proper speed pass the Second Reading and afterwards the Committee stage of the Bill.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the understanding which was come to at the end of last Session. Perhaps it would be as well if I state our interpretation of that understanding. This Bill passed through Standing Committee upstairs, and the Government proposed by a new-procedure to carry the Bill forward in its then stage and start it again in this Session at the stage which it had reached after the deliberations of last Session. On the discussion on that motion an arrangement was come to by which the motion was abandoned, the understanding being, as we think, that we should have a free discussion on the Second Reading, and that the Committee stage should be treated as a formal stage. It was understood that the Committee stage and the Second Reading should be passed in one day.

Sir G. HEWART: I do not think we differ in substance. The arrangement was that the Second Reading and Committee stage should occupy together not more
than one day, and as to the allocation of time as between the different stages, I do not recollect that any arrangement was made.

Captain BENN: The understanding, as far as we are concerned, was that not more than one day was to be devoted to these two stages of Second Reading and Committee.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The understanding was that the Committee stage should be taken as a formal stage and that the real fight on the Bill, in so far as it could be carried on, should take place on the Report stage, the idea being as far as possible to take up the Bill where it was left and to carry it on to the Report stage for a real discussion, except that on the Second Reading a full deliberation on the principles of the measure was regarded as quite permissible by the Leader of the House when the arrangement was made. Of course, we must have some aleration in Committee to get a Report stage.

Sir G. HEWART: I quite understand what my right hon. Friend says, and I do not think there is any difference of view between us. Steps will be taken in Committee to make sure that the Report stage should follow.

Captain BENN: The important thing from our point of view is that we are entitled to fight this Bill on the Report stage. We understand that the first two stages are somewhat emasculated by the proceedings which took place during the last Session. With a good deal of what the Attorney-General has said I am in complete agreement. The Bill is far leas formidable not only than the Bill which went upstairs at the beginning of the Session, but it is far less formidable than the Bill which was introduced before the conclusion of the Session, and which might have been taken if it had not been for the intervention of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and other hon. Members. In the Committee upstairs the Bill was cut down by the Government themselves. Then it was reintroduced in its reduced form. In the Committee a great many alterations were made. Some penalties were modified and some provisions were altogether excised from the Bill. During the Recess it has been found possible to take out still more. The Injuries in War
(Compensation) Acts have been eliminated, and other items have been struck out, with the result that the Bill is now introduced in a still more reduced form. If the Government would leave the Bill alone it would not be necessary at all. If they waited for a few months they would find that the Bill was superfluous. In regard to many matters we have found, during the past months since the Bill was originally introduced, that the Bill has become superfluous. Except for certain parts of the Bill which should be incorporated in the permanent Statute law of the country, the rest of the Bill will lapse and become quite superfluous before the time when the existing powers of the Government under the Defence of the Realm Act come to an end. I have not seen any signs of any rapid making of peace by the Government. It took fourteen months to make peace with Germany. I do not think the terms of the Turkish Treaty are yet arranged. Is there any reason to suppose that peace with Turkey will be ratified by the belligerents before this Act, according to its terms, comes to an end?
It is a most objectionable Bill. It is almost impossible to understand it without a vast deal of study. You have not only to study the regulations by reference to the schedules, but you find that there is an enormous volume of regulations that have been made. It is a very formidable job for anyone understand what really is the intention of this Bill. There are 12 Acts of Parliament which are amended or affected or altered in some way in this Act, each of which in the ordinary way would be the subject of a separate Bill. In addition, 44 regulations are continued with certain limitations, and some of these limitations are extremely objectionable, while others are, we think, entirely superfluous. I will give a few illustrations of what we regard as objectionable. In Section 2 of the Bill power is given to the Court to seize any goods that may be used in respect of offences committed under the Act. I have read the Reports in Committee, and it is very doubtful whether that would not authorise the Court to see the printing presses of a newspaper that has been suppressed under the Defence of the Realm Act. That I hold to be an extremely objectionable proceeding. We have seen something of it in what has occurred in Ireland. Take some of the other proposals. There is a perfectly
good proposal for regulating the sale of cocaine. I have not the least objection to that; it is a very good proposal, but it should be made part of the permanent law of the land. There is no reason why it should be brought in by regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act.
There is another regulation about assuming names and another about shop hours. Both these, if good, and I do not doubt that they are, should be made part of the ordinary body of statute law. Another Act continued is that relating to the making of wills by men serving in the Army or Navy. The case for this was explained so lucidly in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman that obviously it should be made not part of a Bill which continues only to a certain date of this year but part of the permanent body of legislation of the country. Then the Summer Time Act, whether you like it or not, obviously is a matter which should be embodied in a Bill so that both those who like it and those who disapprove of it might decide the issue on the floor of the House. Some of the Bills seem to add great confusion to the general body of legislation. For instance, there are schedules which deal with financial regulations, coal control, road transport and railway transport. The proper and orderly way of dealing with these subjects would be in the Bills which were recently passed through the House or are about to be passed and deal specifically with these subjects. We set up a Ministry of Transport by an Act which was discussed at great length upstairs, and then we find that a War Laws Emergency Regulation is introduced, conferring new powers or modifying powers which the Ministry already possess. That is an unsatisfactory way of doing business.
But those are not objections of a very contentious or essential character. But there is one objection which would alone justify me in moving the rejection of the entire measure. That is Clause 2 subsection (4). Though the word "Ireland" is not inserted in this Clause it is provided that in any district where a proclamation is in force—which applies to the greater part of Ireland—the whole body of the Defence of the Realm machinery is to continue in operation not until the 31st of August this year, as in the case with every other part of the United Kingdom,
but for one year after the "expiration of the present war." That is to say that for a year after the last belligerent ratifies the Treaty this year right to the end of 1921 this repressive administration is to be continued in Ireland. Here is a subsection conferring upon the administration in Ireland the whole of the power for carrying on the abominable system of repression existing in that island today, and there is no representative of the Department concerned at present on the Treasury Bench.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Henry): Yes there is.

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman has just won by a short head. It is at least due to this House that the Chief Secretary himself should be present to show why these powers are being conferred upon Dublin Castle. But the Chief Secretary does not think it worth while to be present and to answer for his Department. This is a typical commentary on the way in which Dublin Castle is running the country at present. Step by step with this repressive administration in Ireland there have been outrages or crime. Every step which the Government, as represented by the Irish Administration, has taken to put down liberty in Ireland has been followed by further outbreaks of crime in that country, and those who deplore and condemn, as we do, outrages in Ireland desire to see the Administration in Ireland altered in order that those outrages may come to an end. I would remind the House of what has taken place in the course of the last six months. In September six newspapers were suppressed together and the Sinn Fein organisation was suppressed in Dublin. Later on the Sinn Fein and three other organisations were suppressed over the whole of Ireland. Then the prison rules were made more severe. Then the "Freeman's Journal" was suppressed, and only the other day there was another round-up and 65 members of the Sinn Fein organisation were arrested, and the Lord Mayor of Dublin was arrested and lodged in gaol in this country without any charge being made against him.
Step by step with this repression there have been fresh outbursts which the leaders of the constitutional party in Ireland and the Sinn Fein party have been powerless to prevent owing to the
action of the Government itself, and I say that to confer new powers of this kind on the Government is the worst possible course to pursue in the interests of order in Ireland. Their argument always is, "There is another crime. We must have more powers of repression." The fact is, as all who study history know very well, that the more savage the repression the more savage the reprisals. Even the "Times"—(laughter)—at one time the "Times" commended itself to hon. Members opposite, and it is at least an organ which reflects the opinion of the" people of this country, and the "Times" says,
a bitter hatred arises against the administration not because it endeavours to secure law and order but because the Irish people are convinced that the objective, in reality, is the suppression of the national ideal.
Though under the arrangement which we have come to as regards Second Reading and Committee the time to be devoted to a discussion of this subject is limited. I must warn the right hon. Gentleman that when we get to the Report stage we shall fight as strongly as we can this proposal to hand over to Dublin Castle further powers for stamping out liberty and freedom in Ireland. What is the Government's intention as regards Ireland? They are taking powers to continue for a year after the conclusion of peace, which will probably mean the middle of 1921, or later, all the machinery of defence and repression which they thought were necessary in a time of war. But they profess to be going to introduce a Home Rule Bill. We were told by the Prime Minister that it was to be introduced this week. If the Home Rule Bill is to be introduced this week, and if the Government mean business about it, why are they asking us to pass a Bill to invest the administration with these military powers? Supposing that the Home Rule proposals are bona fide, by whom are these powers to be exercised? Are they to be exercised by the War Office in this country or to be handed over to be exercised by the two Parliaments in Ireland. Because if they are to be exercised by nobody, why should they be proposed? The fact is that this part of the Bill, which is really the gravamen of the whole of our objection to it, throws a lurid light on the Government intention with regard to Ire-
land, and I invite the Chief Secretary, who is now in his place, some time during the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, to tell us precisely what is the Government intention in reference to this most objectionable portion of a very objectionable measure.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: As my hon. and gallant Friend has just remarked, the word "Ireland" does not occur in this sub-clause. I do not know whether the Government calculated on the presence of so small a number of Irish Members in this House as to think that they might successfully camouflage opinion in this House by adopting this dexterous and subtle form of words. They do not mention Ireland, but the main purpose of this Bill is to coerce Ireland and to continue the coercion of Ireland, and yet Ireland is not mentioned. I have sometimes thought that my countrymen and some foreigners were a little severe in their judgment upon England when they spoke of its perfidy and I shall not imitate their example in this respect because I have no charge to make against the good faith and good feeling of the mass of English, Scotch and Welsh people, but so far as the Government of Ireland is concerned, above all, so far as the present administration of Ireland is concerned, I think that this attempt to smuggle through a new Coercion Act for Ireland without mentioning the name of Ireland is one of the worst pieces of Government hypocrisy and Pharisaism that I have ever seen, even during my forty years' experience of successive Irish administrations. Why did not the Government put the word "Ireland" into this Clause of the Bill? Why did they adopt such a wretched, dishonest, hypocritical way of enacting coercion for Ireland without mentioning the name? I am dealing with sub section (4), page 3, which says
if immediately before the passing of this Act a proclamation suspending the operation of Section 1 of the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) Act, 1915,
etc.… the regulations
shall continue in force until the expiration of twelve months after the termination of the present War. '
That date, if I remember aright, is the 31st August of the present year in England. In Ireland they are substituting, without mentioning Ireland—that is-their dexterity and dishonesty—a repress-
sive act justifiable only by all the emergencies and perils of a great war. The effect of the clause is, that whereas this Act, with all its pains, penalties, and restrictions on liberty, will come to an end in August next in England it is to be maintained for a further year or a year and a half in Ireland. When you come to the definition of the end of the War, that may not happen until every single Treaty of Peace is adopted and ratified by all the parties to the treaties. We have only just begun the discussion of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey, and so far as the indications go we are going to make a very dishonest peace. But whatever the treaty may be, we are only beginning negotiations and the Treaty may not be ratified by the Turkish Parliament for from six to nine months from now, and until it is ratified the War may be declared not to be at an end. Therefore nine months from now, when the last Treaty of Peace is ratified and when the Government declare the War is at an end, these repressive powers are to be maintained in Ireland for a further period of twelve months. That is the dishonesty—dishonesty in its terms or omission of terms.
What is the justification for it? Is the policy of repression a success? I know that gentleman will probably get up and describe the number of assassinations that have taken place in Ireland. Need I assure the House that I regard those assassinations with horror and dismay? I believe that although revolutions, and even sanguinary revolutions, have been made necessary by the follies and iniquities of Governments, every sanguinary resolution leaves a certain amount of poison in the veins of a nation. I could give no better example than that of France, where still fierce divisions of party, which even threaten the unity of that nation, are derived from the horrors of the campaign of terror in 1793 and later. What I ask is this: has the policy of repression diminished murders in Ireland? Has it diminished crime; has it detected crime? There was practically no assassination or crime in Ireland until this policy of repression was put into force, and I lay it down as a proposition as clear to any man with an open mind as a proposition in Euclid that the greater the repression the greater the crime. What, then, is the use of any man getting up in this House and saying
that we require this dishonest prolongation of repression in Ireland for the purpose of putting down crime? I say that the longer you continue the policy of repression the deeper will be the stain of these crimes upon Ireland and upon its administration. Does the policy succeed? Take some of the facts mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Benn). Ireland has had a series of municipal elections. For good reasons or bad, in most of those elections she has returned a Sinn Fein majority.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Republican majority.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Sinn Fcinism is the child of such politicians as my hon. Friend (Sir J. Butcher) and of a Government which has been the miserable slave and creature of such politicians since the present Prime Minister came into power, and it derives also from the rebellious and outrageous movement which was started in the North of Ireland just before the enactment of the Act of 1914. [Some interruption.] I do not want to revive old controversies. I am engaged with the Government at the moment, not with my hon. Friends on the opposite side. If they choose to trail the tails of their coats my hon. Friend (Mr. Devlin) will be quite willing to take up the challenge.
What is the state of things in Ireland? I read an article by a Sinn Fein writer in a French paper the other day. A nice kind of reputation you are giving to the country when such proceedings as those I am about to relate are published to the world. I read that between 50 and 60 lives of civilians have been lost since this policy of repression began in Ireland. The other day I took up a paper and I found that in the city of Limerick a number of soldiers and policemen broke loose from all the bonds of discipline. I do not deny that there was provocation to both soldiers and police, and certainly to the police, in the number of their force who have been murdered, but that doe3 not excuse the fact that the police and soldiers broke away from all discipline, fired indiscriminately through the streets of Limerick and killed two or three people, two of whom, I think, were women, as innocent of any participation in the disorder, or whatever else it may have been, as any man or woman in this country. Talk of crime! Talk of
lawlessness! The greatest lawbreaker in Ireland to-day is the Government. The greatest crime manufacturer in Ireland to-day is the Government itself.
The proposal here is to re-enact in Ireland the Defence of the Realm Act for a year or a year and a half after it has ceased in England. That even does not state all the case. D.O.R.A., with all its faults, in England still has a check over it in the Courts of Law. The Courts of Law have had before them several of the proceedings by the Government under D.O.R.A., and those proceedings have been revised and declared illegal by the Courts in this country. As one living in England, I am proud that no Government has been able to touch the purity and the love of liberty and the impartiality of our judicial tribunals in this country. But go to Ireland! Do you suppose that Dublin Castle and the officials there, the little gang of whom those two Gentlemen I see opposite are merely the puppets and the marionettes—[HON. MEMBERS:" Which is which? "] I will call one the puppet and the other the marionette. I am quite willing to make hon. Gentlemen a present of that. I ask, what do Dublin Castle and the officials there care about legal decisions? The very things that have been condemned by the Courts of Law in England, acts done by the Government, the things which have been condemned as illegal, are carried on in Ireland as if no decision had been given. They all snap their fingers, not only at the opinion and the resentment of three-quarters of the people, but at the most solemn decisions of the highest tribunals of England.
Do people realise what is going on? The other day a republican majority—I must call it republican, I suppose, though I believe there are nuances in Sinn Fein—was elected to the municipal councils in Ireland. That was the verdict of the Irish nation, but immediately after that verdict had been given the Government arrested 65 Sinn Feiners, so that the more Ireland expresses its confidence in a certain type of politician the more certain is it that politicians will be arrested, imprisoned and imported to England. The Municipal Council of Dublin elected one of its Sinn Fein members as Lord Mayor. He is in Wormwood Scrubs in London to-day and cannot hold communication with any of
the people whom he represents, and he is there on a principle which I would have thought as antiquated in any free country as the lettres de cachet by which Ministers and Sovereigns sent men to the Bastile in pre-revolutionary France. Fairs and markets are abolished. I heard of an old woman who made a living as a small poultry farmer. She came to a market town to sell two or three dozen eggs and to raise the money wherewith to meet the needs of her household budget. She was told that the fair had been proclaimed and that she could not sell the eggs. Unless she and her family eat the eggs themselves, a thing which they cannot afford to do, they will be left without bread. Liberty has ceased to exist in Ireland. Do not tell me that you are doing this to put down crime. I have gone through all this before. I was with the late Mr. Parnell, one of the executives of the Land League in Ireland in the eighties. Mr. Parnell was sent to Kilmainham Gaol. As he went through the portals of that sinister prison he said, "I am in gaol, and Captain Moonlight will take my place"; and that is exactly what happened. After Mr. Parnell was placed in prison there came not a diminution but an enormous augmentation of crime in Ireland. Why should I argue a position so simple? Is there a single man in this assembly who, considering similar conditions in any country in Europe, would not avow the principle that autocracy and repression are the parents of crime? Was it not that which produced Nihilism in Russia and the revolution which has since occurred? I do not believe there is a single member of the most Tory obscurantist section in this House who would not say that Czarism was condemned by the existence and creation of crime. We gave a cheer—I am sure it was a welcome surprise—to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) this afternoon, when he rose to ask for the restoration of trial by jury.

Sir E. CARSON: In civil cases, because it is not suspended in the other. That is why I could not understand your joke.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I could not under stand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should object. He began his great fame and position under a coercion system which abolished trial by jury, and substituted a system whereby resident
magistrates held their positions at the pleasure of Dublin Castle from whom they had their instructions as to whom to convict or acquit. Civil law is dead in Ireland. I hear some talk of establishing martial law in that country. It exists already. After all this deadly condemnation of the system of coercion in Ireland, here comes the simple Attorney General for England, with the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and without mentioning the name of Ireland, with dishonest taciturnity seek to renew D.O.R.A.
5.0 P.M.
I have to warn the Government that this policy will not put down crime in Ireland. I put it to the Government that this policy of theirs does not end its sphere of evil within the shores of Ireland herself or the shores of England herself. I know politicians like the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Duncairn, snort when anybody mentions America as having any influence on the policies of this country.

Sir E. CARSON: When did I snort?

Mr. O'CONNOR: The right hon. and legal Gentleman has so often been called a "war horse" that I thought "snort" was an appropriate term to apply to his speeches. I think I saw a letter of his in the "Morning Post" on this subject which I would describe as a "snort."

Sir E. CARSON: It was never answered.

Mr. O'CONNOR: This is a gospel I have preached all my life, and in face of tremendous opposition on the part of my own countrymen and great misunderstanding and calumny, that I regarded the greatest guarantee of the future good Government and liberty and peace of the world in friendship between the two great English speaking countries, Great Britain and Ireland and the United States of America. If I made that proposition before the late war, still more have I the right to make it after the late war when the two nations fought side by side for the same ideals. Twelve months ago, or a little more after the Armistice, there was nothing but good feeling between the people of the United States and the people of Great Britain as a whole. There was hope all over the world. The proposal of President Wilson for the League of Nations was regarded by everybody as the opening of a new and better
chapter and a new and holier gospel in the relations of nations and of mankind generally. Where are those hopes now? Where is the good feeling in America towards this country now? Where is the faith in the efficiency of the League of Nations? I warned you, almost within 24 hours of my arrival from America, that you would be face to face in that country with one of the greatest anti-English movements of my time. I never realised it would be ten times as bad as I anticipated at that moment. If it had not been for some of the articles and speeches of provocation and of incitement which appeared in the journals and in speeches in England and Germany, we might never have had to face that magazine of ill-feeling between the two countries which required, in the end, only a fuse to burst into the horrible and devastating War through which we have just passed. Beware, for if you allow bad feeling and hostile opinion to arise between the two countries, you never can answer for the consequences. The repute and fame of this nation have gone down since the Armistice, and mainly through this policy which you seek, by a subterfuge, to perpetuate in Ireland. Does anybody now believe that the present policy of your administration in Ireland represents what you declared to be your desire, namely, to give justice to small nationalities and freedom of the world? I will go further, and I say there is not a single problem still unsolved in the world since the War that does not derive some of its poisonous fruits owing to the relations you have created between the British Government and the Irish people. To-day a question was asked by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor) with regard to the massacre of fifteen hundred Armenians, and the Government had to confess that that statement was true. We had some questions also to-day with regard to the policy of the Government in Turkey. If you had a peaceful and reconciled Ireland, you would have had America to-day the mandatory and guardian of Constantinople, and you would have liberated the Armenians and you would have freed yourselves from some of the most difficult and terrible problems which you still have difficulty in solving. I read a book a few days ago by a brilliant Pole on the question of Turkey, and, describing the effects of the War, he said that the chief fact was that the jailer nations had disappeared from the world for ever, but he
forgot Dublin Castle. We have still a jailer nation in Ireland in England which ought to be the guardian and the champion of liberty.

Sir F. BANBURY: I claim to myself the credit of always having opposed this Bill. It was partly owing to my exertions on a certain Bank Holiday in August that the Bill did not go through all its stages. In the Committee I took a considerable interest in the Bill, and I desire to say that the Government met us in a very statesmanlike manner The only-part of the Bill which did not meet with my opposition, was the clause which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connor) has been denouncing, and which, as far as my recollection goes, was passed almost without controversy. I desire to ask the Government one or two questions as to the course of procedure. I understand that we are going to have a report stage during which certain amendments can be moved. An arrangement was come to about the Committee stage, and though I was not present I must abide by it. There are one or two suggestions to which I hope the Government will listen. In the second schedule the 31st August has been inserted as the date on which these Regulations are to expire. In the first schedule the dates on which they expire range from six to twelve months. I ought to have moved a similar amendment limiting them to the 31st August on the first schedule. I think it would be a convenience to all concerned to have the same date in both schedules. This is a point which perhaps does not arise on second reading, but I mention it as we are not going to have the opportunity of an ordinary Committee Debate.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Oh yes, we shall have the opportunity.

Sir F. BANBURY: The shipping control proposals are very drastic, and under present circumstances I do not think they ought to be continued. We had a division in Committee on this, and the Government only carried it by a majority of one. I think under those circumstances we might ask the House to support the minority of the Committee and to delete those Regulations. There is also the question of summertime. Whether that is right or wrong, if it is necessary, it should be continued by Act of Parliament and not by Regulation of
this kind. We have also restrictions on the purchase of ships. I should have thought we would want more ships, and not restrictions. With the exceptions I have mentioned I have not very much to say on the Bill as it is now. I have a copy of the Bill marked with the amendments of Committee, and I do not see some of them.

Sir G. HEWART: There were certain Acts of Parliament which were mentioned in the Bill as it left the Committee, such as the Compensation for Injuries Act, and an Act continuing certain powers and there are one or two regulations which were also in the Bill, but which are now omitted. There are four or five omissions altogether.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to refer to Regulations and not to Acts. I would ask the Government to accede to the suggestions I have made, especially with regard to the alteration of date. I would also like to know if we shall have time to put our amendments down on the paper for Report stage.

Sir G. HEWART: Yes.

Sir F. BANBURY: And then to proceed in the ordinary manner.

Mr. MacVEAGH: What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do in case there are no Amendments to the Committee stage, and therefore no report stage?

Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that that has been arranged and the formal Amendment of some sort will be proposed.

Sir G. HEWART: That was mentioned, and I have since given notice of an Amendment.

Mr. CLYNES: The understanding which was reached when this Bill was before the House in December of last year precludes many of us from making any long statement at this stage of our discussion, but I want in the course of my very few remarks to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman who has submitted this Bill for Second Reading, because he omitted to refer to a point which I thought would have found some place in his several references to points of detail. I have been approached by those who are associated with the manage-ment
ments of the Rochdale Canal Company, and they inform me, as indeed is proven by reference to the different Bills which have been before us in connection with this subject, that there has been dropped from this Bill the provision contained in a former Bill empowering the Transport Minister to exercise control over canals, and if that be so, then I should ask for some opportunity to move in Committee for the insertion of powers of that kind, or at any rate to ask from my right hon. Friend for information as to the reasons for deleting so important a provision as that. On the Bill generally, I think it must have struck Members in all parts of the House that this is really very extraordinary procedure. It is true that the Government has to its account a succession of retreats, both in Committee and in the House itself, since they first took this matter in hand, and therefore the Bill is a much more understandable matter now than it was when it was first brought before us. We are entitled, therefore, to offer some protest, if not against the matter of this Bill, certainly against the manner in which legislation of this kind has been submitted to us.
Here is a Bill of but three or four Clauses, but of double that number of pages of schedules, and I can imagine some body of amateur legislators assembled in this House later on, if empowered by the electorate to make any changes, proposing a completely new social order in one Bill. Why should we not have these immense industrial and economic changes all put through in a few days in one measure if some Government of the future can have behind it a large enough majority to take such drastic action? I do not think it is to the credit of the Government that they have thrown at us such a bundle of proposals as are to be found in the pages of this Bill, and we ought therefore to have several separate Bills if there is to be any serious continuance of some of the existing emergency laws. Our main point of protest, if I may so name it, against this Bill is this, that we had passed almost by common consent a number of laws during the period of the War that were regarded as essential because we were in a period of war, and measures which were passed for that purpose for the particular conditions of the War ought not now to be any longer continued unless some proof is given to
the House as to the necessity. Indeed, I think I could refer to one or two points mentioned in the schedules in order to show how inconsistent the Government is in bringing this measure before the House at a moment when by administrative measures and by Cabinet action they are taking action of a very different kind in regard to one of the most important matters affecting questions of prices and food control. The Food Ministry is being demobilised and shorn of its powers. Reference is made in this Bill with respect to food control in a manner to make it appear that there is still to be considerable control exercised in regard to food supplies and food prices. The laws that were essential, and to which we unanimously agreed during the course of the War, are no longer now necessary, and I think, therefore, the House should have been treated in quite a different manner from the treatment to which it has been subjected by this Bill.
I will not follow my hon. Friend who spoke from the point of view of conditions in Ireland along the path into which he has entered, but as the Chief Secretary for Ireland is present, I would, on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches, put the view that once more a case has been presented from the Irish point of view which remains unanswered. That case is that the measures taken to deal with and to prevent crime in Ireland are evidently succeeding only in increasing crime. These measures, if they become more stringent and more serious than they now are, are quite unlikely to have the desired effect, and if the House shortly, as we understand is to be the case, is to be asked to approach the Irish question with the object of reaching a settlement of that unhappy controversy, then we ought to be permitted as a House to face a discussion of that question in a temper wholly different from that in which we are placed by everyday events as they are happening in Ireland. Ireland is not the country where alone crime of a kind is on the increase. We cannot open a paper, not a single edition of a newspaper, in this country day after day without ourselves being shocked at some record of crime of the very worst kind in our own country, and yet we do not think it necessary to take any more steps than the ordinary steps taken to deal with it. I am not saying that the
parallel is quite a complete one, but I do say that events in Ireland have completely failed to justify the policy of the Government and that some announcement more consoling than any we have yet received may well be given to us in order that by the time we are able to approach the general question of the future of Ireland we may do so free from the painful reflection of that country being still under a condition practically of martial law.
I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give me, on that point of detail which I mentioned, some reassurance, because in a part of Manchester which I represent this position of the Rochdale Canal and tributaries to it are matters of the highest importance, and we cannot understand how it is that the control which this measure will continue in respect to other forms of transport is not to be continued in the case of the canals.

Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Several speakers have already stated the fundamental truth that the regulations which are to be continued under this Bill are so complicated and so various that probably nobody in the House at the present moment really appreciates what the House is doing in continuing them. The Attorney-General remarks that it is the House's own fault. I am sure he, as a lawyer, will agree with me as another lawyer, that the total bundle of regulations under the Defence of the Realm Acts, and the Orders made thereunder is a vast and complicated congeries of legislation which not a single lawyer to-day understands from beginning to end. Of course many are understood, and it may be that all are understandable, but the fact does remain that we are asked under this Bill to carry on a vast and heterogeneous body of legislation at one stroke, a body of legislation brought into existence in a time of extreme urgency, much of which is unsuited even to the state of affairs in which the country now is to-day. The point which seems to me important in connection with this debate is not so much to consider the details of any individual regulations, but that the House should have from the Government an absolutely definite statement of policy in regard to this whole type of legislation. The right hon. Gentleman, the Attorney-General,
who moved the Bill, said, and I know he meant it, that the Bill provides an ultimate date, the 31st August next, beyond which the regulations cannot go under the provisions of this Bill. What the House wants to know from the Government is whether it is the deliberate policy of the Government, so to speak, to decontrol all the various Departments affected by these regulations as quickly as may be between now and the 31st August, so that on the 31st August we shall really see an end of them. That seems to me the important thing that the House ought to deal with to-day. If the House can get from the Government today a quite clear undertaking of policy on these lines, then I for one submit the view that, taking it broadly, the Bill is a reasonable Bill under the existing circumstances.
Take, for instance, the case of the Food Ministry. We all appreciate that it has been a very difficult thing to know whether the whole food control should be terminated at once, or whether it should be continued for some indefinite time longer, and we know that it has been so difficult that there has been more than one change of policy in regard to that matter, but that is an excellent instance of the essential necessity of continuing some of the powers of the Food Ministry so long as food control is a necessity. But if the House has from the Government a perfectly clear undertaking that decontrol of the Food Ministry will be completed by the end of August next, then the House will be justified in looking upon these proposals in a very different light from what it would if the Government were not in a position to give the House any such undertaking. Therefore, I venture to emphasise very much the importance of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill giving the House an assurance on that aspect of the case. Assuming that we have such an assurance, then the examination of the Bill, I sub mit, should be limited to one or two particular points. Under Clause 2 there is a provision that all the Defence of the Realm Regulations which are contained in the Schedules are to become, as it were, an Act of Parliament. The words are at the end of Sub-clause (1) of Clause 2, which says: "And as so continued shall have effect as if enacted in this Act."
A good many Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Acts have been before the Courts, and in four cases, I think I am right in saying, four important Regulations have been held by the Courts to be invalid. Amongst these Regulations which the Bill proposes to continue are some conferring very drastic powers indeed, empowering, for instance, the Food Ministry to interfere with commerce, with manufacturing industry, and with agriculture to an extent which is obviously not necessary at the present time. Now it may be that these Regulations are valid, or it may be that they are invalid, but I Jo submit that the House ought not, by a stroke of the pen, to translate all invalid Regulations into the realm of effective Acts of Parliament as is proposed by this Clause. If the Government know that a Regulation may be put to the test of judicial proceedings as regards its reasonableness, in view of the Acts under which it was made, then they will be careful before they attempt to put into force any of the extremely drastic powers contained in these Regulations. For that reason, in the Committee stage or the Report stage, I shall propose to move, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill may see his way to accept, as an amendment, a proviso that they shall be continued by this Bill to the extent to which the same would have been valid if not continued under the provisions of this Act. That is to say, if by any chance a government department does take action under one of these Regulations against some person or class of persons who regard the action as very unreasonable, I submit that now, 15 months from the end of hostilities, it would be only reasonable to leave the validity of that Regulation to the judgment of the Courts, and not prejudge the case by three or four words at the end of this sub-section put in when the House does not know what it is doing. We cannot, any of us, undertake to know the details of all these Regulations beforehand, and, by the addition of some such proviso as I am suggesting, we shall keep open that question in regard to any aggressively strong Regulation, or against any unreasonable action, which we hope will not take place but may take place on the part of a government department.
If we put in a proviso of that kind, the Government will be careful not to call in powers under the Regulation about the validity of which it has any doubt. It will be, as it were, a caution to the Government not to be too drastic at this stage in the progress of reconstruction in this country since the War. That is the point I submit, and I think it is particularly important in regard to the Food Ministry, because practically the whole of the powers of the Food Ministry under these Regulations are preserved, and the House will remember that in the New Ministries' Act power was given to the Food Ministry to make orders, not only dealing with the sale of food, but with the whole of British agriculture, and all or nearly all the powers obtained by the Board of Agriculture during the War to make compulsory orders dealing with agriculture were obtained by the Food Ministry under the Food Ministry Act by means of the Food Regulations. At the present day it is the policy of the Government, announced through the Ministry of Agriculture, that agriculture is to be decontrolled in every respect as rapidly as possible—a decision for which I, for one, am devoutly thankful. But preserving the whole of these Regulations as to the powers of the Food Controller still keeps alive the powers of the Food Controller to interfere with agriculture, and, therefore, I venture to think that is another reason why we should look very jealously and carefully upon a proposal of the Government that they should not be given complete carte blanche. Therefore I ask, first that we should have a definite undertaking about decontrol before the end of August next, and, secondly, I make a proposal about invalid Regulations.
There is one more proposal of a particular kind. The House will remember that, during the war, possession was taken of a great number of buildings and pieces of land, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and that the Government took the line of saying "We are entitled to take your buildings and your land under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, or under the Royal Prerogative, as the case may be, without any obligation of the Government to pay anything in respect of our occupation." They said "We will give you something as an act of grace if you go to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, where small sums are given, not as a matter or right,
but as an act of grace. General Regulation No. 2, enabling Departments to take possession of land, is not continued by this Bill, but one Regulation is continued, namely, Regulation 2 A.B. Now Regulation 2 A.B. was not issued by the Order in Council until some days after the Armistice. it was issued under the powers of two Acts of Parliament passed on the 21st November, 1918—the Act which deals with the Ministry of Pensions, and the Act which deals with the Ministry of Labour, both of which Acts provided that the Ministry of Pensions or the Ministry of Labour respectively might give a certificate that certain land must be requisitioned. This Regulation 2 A.B. continues those powers, and under this Regulation the Minister of Pensions or the Minister of Labour may take premises compulsorily anywhere throughout the country by a mere certificate that it is necessary. On those premises being taken by the Government, the Government then, under the Regulation, if it becomes a part of the Act, as it does by the words I have previously read, will no doubt contend that they are not under any obligation in law to pay anything in respect of that occupation. They will say handsomely and graciously "Go to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, and out of the bounty of the Crown you may get something." I submit that the War is too far gone by to justify the continuance of a provision of that kind, and that this Regulation 2A.B. and any others of a similar character that there may be under these Regulations enabling the Government to take possession of the private property of individuals, whether it be land, houses or chapels, should be subject all the way through to a stipulation that if without those the individual would be entitled in law to receive fair compensation, that individual shall continue entitled in law to receive it, and I would propose that this House should insist in attaching a proviso to clause 2, sub-section (1) of the Bill to the following effect:
Provided that no person shall by reason of this Act be deprived of any right of compensation which he otherwise would have had, and no person shall be obliged to submit his claim to compensation to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission who, hut for this Act, would have been entitled to have such claim assessed by any tribunal or authority.
The War has gone by too long to justify
any other procedure, and therefore I would strongly urge that that proviso should be inserted in the Bill. The House will remember that the right of the Crown to take land without compensation is at the present time sub judice in the House of Lords, and will be argued shortly, and that on the question of taking goods there was a decision in the High Court the other day, Mr. Justice Salter holding that, under a Regulation which provided for taking over a large quantity of rum, the Department taking it was not entitled to take it except at the market price. I venture to submit that the sound view for the House to take on this matter with regard to this Bill is that we will continue these Regulations to the end of August, and say to the Government that during that period of winding-up you shall not have any higher rights, so to speak, than you would have had had the Regulations remained as Regulations merely, and the subject shall have any rights of compensation which he had before, coupled with the right to go to the proper legal tribunal as before.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: Those of us who followed this Bill rather care fully through the Committee stage find ourselves this afternoon in somewhat of a difficulty, owing to the pledge which was given by my right hon. Friend to the Government at the end of last Session. The effect of that pledge is that we get no Committee stage. We are unable to put down our Amendments on the Paper, and have time for their consideration. I would suggest to the Government that they give us a full Report stage, and that they give us not only a day, but that they suspend the 11 o'clock rule in order that those of us who really object to this Bill in principle may have a full opportunity of discussing the measure. It would also enable Mr. Speaker to look upon our Amendments with a rather more indulgent eye than he might under our new Rules of Procedure if the time were limited to 11 o'clock. I mean, as far as I can to carry out quite scrupulously the pledge given by my Leader, so that the Government get the Second Reading and the Committee stage to-day. I shall put no obstacle in the way because I feel bound by that pledge, and I will observe it the more scrupulously, perhaps, because I am indebted to the Government for the way in which they met us in Committee upstairs. They did not succeed
in overcoming our objections to the principle of this Bill, but, so far as they could, in matters of detail they met us very fully and very fairly, and I am grateful to them for it.
I am not going to traverse the ground that was so admirably covered by my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the rejection of this measure, but, with regard to Ireland, I do want to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Is it worth while extending this Defence of the Realm Bill to Ireland at all? You are not dealing with a class of offence under this Bill that is troubling Ireland to-day. It is not whistling for cabs that is troubling Ireland to-day; it is murder. It is not assuming a name that is troubling Ireland, but it is breaking into police barracks by armed force, and you are not really helping to govern Ireland by continuing these Regulations in Ireland in an extraordinary manner a full year after they have ceased to be operative here. It is not really worth it, and to treat Ireland, a high-spirited nation, in this way, is to ask for bitter opposition and bitter resistance. It would stir up opposition in a docile country, and you can hardly call the Irish race a docile race; they are a high-spirited race, and bear repression very badly. I repeat my appeal to the Government to let Ireland come into line with England on this question. It is not going to help you in any way, I maintain, to continue Defence of the Realm Act in Ireland longer than in England. That is all I really have to say in respect to Ireland. But I would add one word of protest at the way the provision was brought into Committee. It would have been better if it had been explained to the Committee in the first instance, and then it would not have been necessary to spread the debate over several days.
We were told by the right hon. Gentleman that the regulations under what are now the Second Schedule would come to an end on August 31 of this year. Suppose you do not get the Ratification of Peace before August 31. I take it that this Bill is of no value, that the Defence of the Realm Act comes into operation and is continued until the Ratification of Peace with the last of our enemies. If you, therefore, do not get the Ratification of Peace with Turkey before the Autumn the whole of the Defence of the Realm Act
will run and the regulations will not come to an end on August 31st. That is a point about which I should like the Government to give us an answer. It will be within the recollection of the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, who did admirable work in this Bill in Committee upstairs, raised a point of order as to whether the subject could be deprived of his right to proceed by means of Petition of Right. Mr. Speaker ruled that that was outside the scope of the Bill. I would, however, ask hon. Members of this Committee to examine this Bill very carefully. There is the same sort of thing in this Bill. If hon. Members will look at the Regulations they will find that Regulation 2 B of the Second Schedule will be the first statutory sanction given by this House to a proceeding which was condemned the other day by Mr. Justice Salter. It is the first statutory enactment depriving the subject of his right to proceed by Petition of Right. There may be other cases. I notice that this Bill is altered, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General said it has been whittled down. So far as I can make out the whittling down has taken out of the Schedule some enactments that were, or might have been of some considerable value. On November 19th of last year it was considered necessary to continue the compensation for war injuries. Why is it not necessary to-day?

Sir G. HEWART: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman desires an answer I am prepared to give it. In consequence of the lapse of time the Admiralty and the War Office, the two departments which alone were concerned, have come to the conclusion that further provision of that kind is no longer necessary.

Colonel WILLIAMS: That is very admirable, but I would refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the statement made by the then financial Secretary to the War Office in reply to questions which were addressed to him in Committee. If the report of the Second Day's Proceedings on November 19 are consulted.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock): Three months ago!

Colonel WILLIAMS: Yes. Hon. Members will find the following:
Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Is it not possible for the naval and military authorities to put these men under the scheme of compensation
that exists for serving sailors and soldiers? What is the objection? Is it because the naval and military authorities get some advantage by not putting these men under the general scheme?
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): No. The whole conditions of employment of these men are quite different from those of the serving soldiers. They are civilian workmen, and it is only because they are denied the benefits conferred by the Workmen's Compensation Act, by reason of their service abroad, that it has been necessary to cover them by special legislation.
I invite the attention of the House to what follows:—
We have done that by means of an Act which we propose to extend, and I think that is the best way to cover them.
Three months ago it was not only proposed to continue this Act, but to extend it in order to cover these men. If that were so then, I suggest to-day that it is rather extraordinary that it is not necessary to provide for their compensation. However, this is more a Committee point than anything else, and I leave it at that.
I should like very briefly to point to the Regulation on page 10 of the second schedule, 6A, which gives power to exempt factories and workshops from the provisions of the Act of 1901. It came as a blow to a good many of us in Committee to be told that the Government had the right to exempt themselves from the operations of the factory laws. It was very much more of a blow to find that the Government intended also to take powers to exempt any factory which was making goods for the Government from the operations of the Acts. My right hon. Friend, the member for the City, is supposed to be a high Conservative authority, and opposed to Labour. But he, and I, and those who acted with us fought long this provision in Committee. We fought for the retention of the factory legislation to the factories working on Government work. An hon. Member gave us an illustration in respect to rubber manufacture. During the Recess I have had an opportunity of looking into the matter. I find, with the hon. Member, that the Government could not have given a worse exemption than this one. In the manufacture of rubber I am told there is great danger from the salts of naphtha employed. Fumes are given off, and they produce a sort of intoxication on strong men who are work-
ing with it. If that be so it must surely be wrong to employ women and children in late hours in factories of the sort. I would like to urge this point upon my hon. Friend who represents the Home Office. I see that the provisions of this regulation have been whittled down considerably, but as I only got the Bill on Saturday I have not been able to appreciate the full effect of the measure.
Our objection to this Bill is really one of principle. I am almost ashamed to repeat to my right hon. and learned Friend what I said before, but I really want to lay before the House the Regulations which give the power of search and arrest. I admit that we have got very substantial concessions, and I am very grateful to the Government for having given them. But the fundamental difference between us remains. Under these Regulations, in certain cases, the naval and military police authorities have the power of arrest without a warrant. That is taking out of the hands of the magistrates the power of arrest and the power of search in very many cases and transferring it to the Executive Government. What we say is that it is essential to the liberties of the people that the powers of arrest and search should rest with the judicial authorities and not with the Executive Government. That is fundamental. No amount of concession will remove our objection on that point. I would, in conclusion, appeal to the Government to remember that the original Act was passed under very peculiar circumstances It was passed at a time of very great danger and very great difficulty. It was given to the Government of that day by the country as a free offering of their liberties to enable the Government to conduct the War on the best possible terms to defeat the enemy. But the time has come, a good many months after the cessation of hostilities, when the Government should hand back the liberties of the people intact and without one shred detached from them. I believe that if the Government do not do that history will consider they have been guilty of a breach of trust in a matter given to them by the people who were very loyal and desired to do everything possible to win the War.

6.0 P.M.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Because I am a Parliament man, I like to see legislation by Parliament. Our principal objection to this Bill to-day is that it in-
volves, not government by Parliament, but government by the executive. The fact of the matter is that the sooner we remove out of the way all this legislation by Regulations under D.O.R.A., and substitute for Regulations, Orders in Council, and Orders of a Department statutory and substantive law, the better it will be for the whole of the country, and the better precedent it will be for the government of the country. A Government, in perpetuating this sort of government by the Executive, are inventing a very dangerous precedent, which may be used hereafter against the liberties of the people in a most disastrous way. We want to see a good example set even by the Coalition Government, and even though they have got a sort of half-and-half war on with Bolshevism in Russia. It is quite true there are many of these Regulations which it is not proposed to continue after the end of August of this year, but which may have to be continued. There are even more of these special enactments which are continued which may have to be continued to a future time. That is no excuse for passing this Bill, because every single one of these Regulations ought to be in a Special Act of Parliament instead of being an act of the Executive. There could not be anything more ridiculous, for example, than the passing of the Summer Time Bill under the Defence of the Realm Act. That ought not to be an act of the Executive, and the same argument applies to all the Acts which are prolonged. So far as the Regulations are concerned, the case is even stronger. When this Bill was first introduced these Regulations were intended to continue for six or twelve months after the termination of hostilities, but, under pressure, the Government reduced the period to the 31st August this year. It is obvious that the War will not be over by that date and the last peace will not have been ratified, and therefore there is no need for this Bill, because under the Bill itself these Acts will cease to have effect before that date under the original passing of these Regulations. Therefore, the Bill is quite unnecessary, so far as those particular measures are concerned.
This Bill has been brought before us because the Government have nothing else ready, and it is inconceivable that
the House should be put to the trouble of dealing with this measure seeing that it gives the Government so little. Is it worth while to take up two or three days simply to extend the Special Constables Act for another 12 months or to deal with such questions as whistling for cabs? Not one of these questions is worth taking up five minutes of our time. Although the Bill is useless we now have an opportunity of dealing with regulations passed under the Defence of the Realm Act which are contrary to all the principles we have always maintained in the House of Commons. We have seen almost weekly during the last three or four months judges outside declaring that they will maintain the old rights of property even against these Regulations. The judges have decided several cases in spite of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, which they say are ultra vires. We have these judicial decisions which rule out the Regulations as completely as if they had never been made. The judges have been able to establish the rights of property, but not the rights and liberties of the individual. Take, for example, the Zaidak case. It is quite true in this case that Lord Shaw, who had a firm foundation of liberty about him through being a Member of this House, protested that an injustice was being done. That has been the only attempt to secure the liberties of the individual, and it is those liberties which this House ought most jealously to guard.
There was another case at Rotherham where a man was prosecuted under the Defence of the Realm Act for telling in public some ridiculous lies about British ships sinking British submarines, and because he made these idiotic statements he was prosecuted under the Defenee of the Realm Act. I am afraid if we are going to start putting all the people into prison who tell lies there will be a great lack of accommodation and an urgent need for the building of more prisons. It should be quite unnecessary to bring all the forces of the law into operation in order to put those in prison who tell lies. The English people have acquired a certain amount of equilibrium in these matters by hearing fools as well as wise men, and if you are going to cut off the supply of fool oratory then you are doing a deliberate disservice to the education of the people. It is only when you allow
people to hear what is wrong as well as what is right that they are able to choose freely of their own volition. This is a question involving the liberty of the subject and now when there is no possible danger of a foreign invasion to put a man into prison for getting up and talking nonsense is the acme of beaurocratic ineptitude, because in this way you make a man who is otherwise damned as a liar into a martyr, and you break down a tradition which throughout the ages we have managed to build up in this country. Of course prosecutions like that at Rotherham will not be extended and it does not come within the Bill because that regulation dies out; but we have other regulations in the Bill which are equally defective. Regulation 18a is one under which anybody is dealt with who has dealings with a foreign agent and it reads:—
Where a person, without lawful authority or excuse, has been in communication with or has attempted to communicate with a foreign agent he shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he did not know or suspect that the person was a foreign agent, and a person shall be deemed to have been in communication with a foreign agent if he has either within or without the United Kingdom visited the address of an enemy agent or consorted with an enemy agent, or if he has the address of the enemy agent upon him or any information about the enemy agent. The enemy agent includes any person who is reasonably suspected of being or having been employed by the enemy directly or indirectly for the purpose of committing any act outside or inside the kingdom which would be a contravention of any of these regulations.
That regulation hits every member of the Labour party who goes to an international conference or anybody who has any dealings with any foreigners who may belong to the extreme section of opinion who visits this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. A. Henderson) recently was attending a conference abroad and he found that he was being tracked and the British police were looking after him. Of course no prosecution would lie with my right hon. Friend. Then there is the more alarming case of Mr. Geo. Lansbury, who is in Russia, for he is bound to be seeing people who might be considered to be reasonably suspected of having been employed by the enemy for the purpose of committing some acts contrary to the Defence of the Realm Regulation. As Mr. Lansbury would always have broken
all such regulations he could, he may be accused of consorting with some people of that sort abroad and under these Regulations in those circumstances a man may go to prison. This is why we protest against this regulation, which has nothing to do with the War that has ceased.
In the Bill Regulations 51 and 55 are amended, and they are all of the same kind. They are only put into operation under Regulation 18A. The whole of the clauses to which we object are based upon Regulation 18A. What is the object of the Government keeping these powers, and who has brought pressure to bear upon the Government? What is the object of all this, and why are we not having these regulations made in a separate Bill for which the Government and the House of Commons can be held responsible, instead of leaving it to the unchecked operations of the Home Office to deal with as they think fit. The parts of this Bill which deal with special constables and foreign agents are what we on these Benches must fight against, and I think the Government themselves would be well advised to cut them out. The people of this country are tired of government by the Executive, and government by rules and regulations is a bad precedent. Could we not at least cut out of the Bill those parts which must necessarily be contentious, and leave in those which deal with such matters as whistling for cabs and the keeping of pigs? Those parts would go through with out any serious opposition, but Regulation ISA on the right of search under Regulation 51, under which you may destroy printing presses as well as search for illegal literature, are the clauses against which we have very serious grounds for objection. I do beg, to facilitate matters and also to prove that the Government have no secret war, no underhand warfare, in prospect against these dangerous doctrines from abroad, that they will cut out those regulations and leave us a Bill which will be temporary in character, and which we may hope the country will forget as soon as possible.

Sir G. HEWART: We have had a considerable and varied discussion which has occupied some little time.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to close this debate without any reply from those Benches on the question of the application of the measure to Ireland?

Sir G. HEWART: The hon. Member asks mo a question, and I therefore answer him. It is not in my power to close the debate. I rose for the purpose of answering certain specific questions which have been put to me, but I am bound to say that it was my intention to ask the House not to continue the debate unduly. If, however, I am rising at an inconvenient moment, I am prepared to sit down.

Mr. DEVLIN: I think that you did rise at an incovenient moment, because the House is entitled to have some declaration either from the Attorney General for Ireland or from the Chief Secretary.

Mr. HENRY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to say a few words in reply to the speech of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) simply owing to the fact that I had charge of the Bill during the Committee stage upstairs. I will reply as briefly as I can. I can assure my hon. Friend that his fears that the intentions of the Government in connection with Clause 4 of the Bill have been camouflaged is without foundation, because that clause and the Bill have been before the House for a period of nine months, and it is fairly well known that the portion of the United Kingdom in which Section one of the Defence of the Realm Act suspends trial by jury is Ireland. May I point out that we are not asking for the application of the Bill to Ireland for any great length of time. Not only is our period limited to twelve months, but we take power during those twelve months to revoke, if necessary, any of the regulations, and I can assure the House that no one would be more pleased than the Irish Government if the state of affairs became such that we could at any time revoke any of the regulations. Just let me contrast the condition of affairs as regards Ireland with this country. Here you have lived under these regulations for a substantial portion of the War. We ask that those regulations under which you have lived for those years should be continued in Ireland for a period of twelve months. Is it an unreasonable request? Is there any doubt that the condition of things at present existing in Ireland requires something exceptional? I submit that it is not so very exceptional to apply to the existing condition of things in Ireland for a period of twelve months the
very same regulations under which you yourselves have lived.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: We have trial by jury.

Mr. HENRY: That is the one exception. Let me point out exactly what that means. Trial by jury is merely suspended for offences under the Defence of the Realm Act. It is not suspended for the ordinary class of criminals. It is not suspended for murder, burglary, forgery, and cases of that description. It is merely suspended for offences under the Defence of the Realm Act.

Lord R. CECIL: What nature are the cases?

Mr. HENRY: Offences against the Regulations themselves. In those cases it is not possible to have a jury. Offences against these Regulations, however, do not include any of the ordinary crimes. In cases of murder, forgery, burglary and all those crimes, the criminal is not deprived of his right to be tried by jury. It is only in cases of offences against the Regulations themselves, which in many cases are summary offences, and offences which would not in any event be tried by a jury.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Cases such as singing songs and whistling tunes.

Mr. HENRY: Cases such as the carrying of firearms. Take the case of a man found in possession of a revolver. He is not to be tried by a jury. Is it unreasonable that he should be tried summarily having regard to the present state of affairs in Ireland? I submit that it is not. It is impossible to conceive such a case being tried by a jury. When I point out the intimidation to which jurors are liable, I think it is not unreasonable that they should be relieved to some extent from trying these cases. Only the other day, a jury on finding a verdict at an inquest, a modest enough verdict, asked as a favour that their names should not appear in the Press. What then must be the intimidation exercised in a real case of murder when it has that effect in so small a matter as the verdict at an inquest? There is a provision for the removal of the suspension of trial by jury, and the moment it is suspended it brings down the whole of the regulations and leaves Ireland on the same footing as
this country. I submit that twelve months is not a long time, and that the Regulations with which hon. Members are all familiar are not unreasonable seeing that they are designed for the purpose of restoring peace to an afflicted country. I put it to the House that this is a Bill which should receive a Second Reading not merely for England but also for Ireland, and that no undue pressure or coercion has been applied by virtue of these Regulations, having regard to the very serious difficulties which confront the Irish Executive.

Mr. DEVLIN: I should not have thought that there would have been so much force required to press the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make the speech which he has just delivered. It is a very modest and a very simple contribution to the debate. One really would have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was presiding at a tea party, telling what a pleasant environment and atmosphere existed rather than dealing, as the Chief Law Officer of the Crown, with a condition of things in Ireland which, I think, are unparalleled in the history of that country for the last century. There have been objections raised by Englishmen to this Bill. I have read it and have tried to understand it, but I cannot. That may be due to my limited mentality. I regard the whole Bill as a farago of nonsense from beginning to end. There is not the slightest need for it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) told us a story of how an Englishman was arrested the other day for telling lies. He condemned that, and he said: "Why should he not be allowed to lie if he likes?" I think the hon. and gallant Member was quite right. This man is to be made a martyr because he has told lies. You imprison people in this country for telling lies, and you imprison them in Ireland for telling the truth The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that this War Emergency Bill is to be brought into operation in Ireland, not for the purpose of dealing with crime as we understand it, and as it exists in this country and in every great centre of population throughout the world, not for the purpose of dealing with criminality but with opinion. Does the right hon. and learned Gentle-
man think that we are going to sit silently here without protest when we read in the newspapers that the Lord Mayor of Dublin has been arrested, deported, and sent to an English prison? You may arrest him if you like, and you may put him in prison, but you have a right to try him and to inform us, to inform Ireland, and to inform the world, everybody who wants to know, what the Lord Mayor and the Chief Magistrate of Dublin was arrested for. That is the sort of answer that I wanted from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is not a question of carrying arms or of assassination.
When you get up to deal with the Irish Question in this House or on platforms in England, one would imagine that you were dealing with a race of assassins. There are more murders committed in this country in a week than there are in Ireland in a year. There were more people killed in the riots of Belfast in 1886 than there have been killed since the Sinn Fein movement started, and, as one who profoundly differs with the Sinn Fein party, as one who disagrees with them absolutely, I object to this continued policy of trying to put the stigma of criminality upon a race which is free from crime simply because your policy in Ireland has provoked the condition of things which exists there. My hon. Friend the Member for the Ex-, change Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) is right. There have been infinitely more murders since the policy of repression was started, and there have been infinitely more Sinn Feiners since you have started suppressing them. Everybody knows—it is why I took your side in the War—that every despot who crushes freedom, and every man who tries to drench the spirit of justice and of liberty in the world, will live to witness a fresh crop of indignation, of bitterness, of hatred, and of reprisals from those who are crushed and oppressed. I hardly go anywhere in Ireland now but there are Sinn Feiners. I ask them, personal friends of my own, colleagues with whom I have worked in the Constitutional Movement for the last 20 years, and whom I am amazed to find Sinn Feiners. "Why?" And they say: "The Government has made us what we are." Do you mean to tell me that the whole nation has gone mad or wrong, or have they reason for what they are doing? The real fact of the matter is, that all your
Regulations, all your Defence of the Realm Acts, and all your measures to suppress free opinion, even when you differ from it, will only result in making your policy and yourselves more hateful to the people of Ireland, and will only make moderate and constitutional opinion impossible of operation in that country.
I was not here the other day when the Prime Minister made his speech with regard to the Irish Question, but I was greatly struck by one sentence in that speech. The noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) adumbrated a proposal in favour of a Convention being called to formulate new plans for an acceptable solution of this problem of Ireland, but the Prime Minister replied by saying, "We had a Convention before." The noble Lord rejoined that that was not an elected assembly, but a nominated body, and the Prime Minister retorted that the Convention failed because the Sinn Feiners did not attend it," and they were the only people who count." We on these benches have been subjected to a good deal of insult and ingratitude—more ingratitude than the public representatives of any country in the world have ever been treated to by a so-called Liberal Government and a Liberal Prime Minister, and when I look back upon the loyal and unchanging support which this party gave the Liberal party for a period of ten years I cannot but express surprise at this statement of the Prime Minister. Of course, we do not count. You want to know why everything is wrong in Ireland. I will tell you. It is because we do not count, And who are responsible for our not counting? The right hon. Gentleman says the Convention was a failure because the Sinn Feiners would not attend, and they were the only people who count. Yet he comes here and asks for a new D.O.R.A. to keep these people in gaol. This Bill will be in operation when the right hon. Gentleman puts his measure on the Table next Thursday. Most of the men who have been elected to this House and who he says are the only people who count will be in prison.
You are going to bring forward this new beneficent policy to solve this problem of Ireland, to bring peace again to Ireland, to once again raise the power and prestige of the British Empire, you are, I say, going to present this plan
to the people of the world while you use the powers of D.O.R.A. in Ireland. While you are about to change the Government of Ireland, you are going to keep locked up in prison the men elected by the Irish people. Was there ever such a grotesque situation in the history of mankind? The Government betrayed the Irish party by their weakness in playing fast and loose with principles. By a course of political turpitude for which there is no parallel, they wrecked and broke up the only true vocal expression of Irish opinion that ever existed in this House. They robbed us of our influence; they made us incapable of speaking for the people, and they took the rest of the representatives of Ireland and muzzled and imprisoned them. Now they come forward with a Bill which they say is a solution of the Irish question and a settlement of the Irish claim! What is it I object to? The policy of the present has failed. That is clear, and there is no one on the Government Benches who will claim that it has succeeded. Is it to go on? I am speaking now of Ireland, tortured and torn by the tragedy of the last five or six years. I have no claim to speak for anybody but myself, but I should like to see, even now, the great work for which Mr. Redmond fought and sacrificed so much—it is my ambition and my passionate desire that, although he is now in the grave to which he was driven in comparative youth, his policy should be vindicated—and that even now you should do something to redeem the pledges you made to him and in breaking which you broke his heart
The position to-day is practically impossible. We constitutionalists have been driven to despair and the rest of the country has been driven to desperation, yet you go on and on, and there seems to be no end. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) said just now, it is not a question merely of dealing with a little island with 4,000,000 of population. Any strong Power can crush a small Power. Germany could have crushed Belgium, and you gave as your reason for going into the War that you wished to prevent Belgium being persecuted and invaded by Germany. What is the difference here? There is no difference whatever. You have as much right in Ireland as Germany had in Belgium. No race of people has a right to take hold
of the people of another race. No country-has a right to take hold of another country, simply because it has a big military power and can crush the opinion of the people. Whatever a country wants, be it a small country or a large one, that is precisely what that country ought to get, and that is why I agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford that no matter how you may try to play with this question of Ireland, you need not force anything on the country which that country does not want. You need not think, if you carry on your make-believe policy of trying by Welsh oratory or rhetorical wizardry, that you thereby throw dust in the eyes of intelligent mankind. There is no liberty in the world that is not based on the people's will The people s will in Ireland is the only thing you ought to deal with, and you will be safeguarding your own Imperial interests if you produce a scheme of freedom which will enable Ireland to work out her own destiny in her own way.
The sooner that this policy of suppressing free speech is dropped the better. No one has resented Sinn Fein speeches more than I have. I have denounced them in terms even stronger than those used by the right hon. Gentleman. But that is no reason why they should be muzzled; it is a reason rather to let them go on. You suppressed the Sinn Fein loan, and it was trebled in amount. You suppressed Dail Eirann, but it is better known now throughout the world than before it was suppressed. You suppressed the "Freeman's Journal" because it was violent, and it is now twenty times more violent. For every man you send to prison three more come forward ready to go. There is the whole cycle of events in Ireland. There is the whole development of your policy there. I know I am a voice crying in the wilderness, but I am telling the House what I have always told it. I would imagine that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would turn a sympathetic ear to what I have said, because there is not a single proposition I have laid down that he has not put forward on a Scottish platform with far more perfervid oratory than I could ever use. I would like to see the right hon. Gentleman in his kilts standing on a Highland platform talking about the glories of freedom of speech in Gaelic. I would like to see him dancing a Scot-
tish dance. I would like to hear him whistling "Mary of Argyll." Yet he is the instrument by which people who dance Irish dances, who sing Irish songs, and who whistle Irish lyrics are thrown into prison. Vast masses of people gather together for sport, and police, armoured cars and soldiers are brought to break up their festive gathering, When half-a-dozen Irishmen gather for any purpose it seems to be imagined that they have some criminal intent.
I myself have been a victim of this policy. I was announced—as a matter of fact without my own knowledge—to address a meeting in County Tyrone, which was called for the purpose of dealing with a question of sweated workers and the victims of employers who drove the people out of their mills because they struck work. When the strike had been settled everybody who had taken a prominent part in it was dismissed and these people were turned out of the houses belonging to the mills. A meeting was convened to protest against that, and the organisers, knowing that I would be a draw, put me on the bill. But the first thing I knew about it was when I read in the newspapers that the meeting had been proclaimed by the "competent military authority," whatever that may mean. It is enough to make a cat laugh. Competent military authority! What is the competent military authority? Immediately I read the Proclamation in the papers I wrote and stated that I had had no knowledge that the meeting was to be held and had not been invited to it, but I certainly would attend it. I went and I found there assembled a whole army of soldiers in steel helmets and a large number of policemen with rifles. The district inspector met me at the commencement of the village and said he would not allow me through. I asked him why. He said the competent military authority—one would not know they were competent if the word were not there—the competent military authority which represents the incompetent un-military Government had decided that I was not to be allowed to denounce sweating and the eviction of the workers. I did not know what I could do under the circumstances. I had only about two hundred with me. With two hundred men I might have managed a small rebellion in Ulster, which is the Holy of Holies of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Why was that meeting suppressed? Because the owner of the mill got the Grand Master of the Orangemen to write a letter to the Government not to allow the meeting to be held, and the Government proclaimed the meeting. I do not know what the government of Ireland is, or who rules Ireland. I once asked a Lord Lieutenant of Ireland who governed Ireland, and he said he did not know. No one in Ireland knows who rules Ireland. I thought the Chief Secretary, forgetful for the moment of his radical Traditions, was responsible for some of the occurrences of the last few weeks, but he was away out of the country at the time and therefore he was not responsible, so that we do not know who governs Ireland. But whoever governs Ireland proclaimed the meeting.
I went to the district inspector, and he told me I could not go to the meeting. I aid, "I am bound to hold the meeting." He said, "If you do, I have the military here." I asked him if he had ever heard of Dean Swift. He said, "Yes." I said, "Dean Swift, who was a distinguished Protestant divine, once said that one man in his shirt could not fight 10 armed men." It was impossible for me to hold this meeting in face of this manifestation of military force, but I did the best thing I could. I did not meet my own audience, but I rose in a brake and I addressed the conscript soldiers. I said, "Gentlemen of the conscript army, you joined to fight the battle of humanity all over the world, and of liberty against the despotism in Germany. You fought to make England a land fit for heroes to live in, and now you are brought up to cloak Lord Caledon's treatment of his tenants, who did not go to the War at all, and to help to maintain a sweater who was paying something like 9s. a week to women and 15s. a week to men before the War, and in whose firm there had to be a strike in order to get it to pay wages on which people could live. You are conscript soldiers, brought here from England, the sons of working men and women, and working men yourselves, to be used for such mischievous and indefensible purposes as to defend the condition of things which exist here." There was my own experience. I was a victim of this Defence of the Realm Act, which existed in Caledon to make women work for 9s. a week. Why do you not put that in the Regulations and frame it and send a copy to every conscript soldier in
England so that he can say, "Hooray! This is a land fit for heroes to live in."
I shall vote against this Bill. I should oppose it if I were an Englishman. The War is over. What need is there for it? You want personal liberty in this country. The only thing is that you need not make any row about it because any thraldom under which you suffer you are responsible for yourselves, and therefore you cannot complain. But we are here with this thraldom put upon us by a Parliament in which we are not represented. If we were I suppose we should be voted down as usual. You have a right to be governed by D.O.R.A. or by martial law or anything at all you like. It is your own business, but you are not going to do it with Ireland so long as we have a voice to protest against it, and I am going to propose that if you want this Bill you can have it for Great Britain, but that Ireland be omitted, and then you can go home and hug the notion which you have sought and secured for yourselves. I am not at all sanguine that when we went into this War we really got the things we wanted, and I, being a strong supporter of the Allied cause and having contributed as much to help the war as any individual Member of this House, am not at all sure that I ought not to appear in the penitential garb and in sackcloth and ashes. The War has been fought and lives have been lost and blood has been shed and stories have been told of the good things which will occur in all these islands and the great benefits with which humanity would be blessed when the War was over. I have always felt that Englishmen had better be on the watch lest in destroying militarism in Germany they establish it in England. In destroying the military machine and all that the military machine stands for in Germany, do not make the military machine more powerful in this country. It is the military who are governing Ireland to-day. I would not trust a military man as far as I could see him across the street where public interests are concerned. He is all right on the battlefield, but when the battle is over, every General and Colonel, and even Lieutenant, ought to locked up. When you get these sabred and rifled gentlemen coming in to interfere with civil affairs, with the rights and liberties and freedom of the people, we know what the consequences are, and it is because the military are
ruling in Ireland now that a condition of affairs exists in that country which is causing so much pain and torture to the soul of the whole nation and which is raising a spirit of indignation and hostility towards you on the part of lovers of freedom all over the world.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not think the hon. Member's condemnation ought to be left without any reply. In an early part of his speech he explained that he was vehemently opposed to any scheme of Home Rule which was rejected by the Irish people. On that point I do not know that I should be of a very different opinion from him. I certainly do not understand on what principle, in the name of self-determination, you have the right to impose a scheme of self-government which apparently all Irishmen reject. The hon. Member went on to say—and this seems to me to be the kind of exaggeration which so often makes Irish speeches quite ineffective to an English audience—that we have no more right in Ireland than the Germans had in Belgium, Really, that is a most fantastic statement. We are not invading Ireland; we are there as the governing power. You may think we ought not to be there, but as long as we are there it is our duty to govern. Up to the present moment, he said, in a passage which I do not think can have been altogether seriously meant, Ireland was almost entirely free from crime.

Captain REDMOND: I cannot allow the noble Lord's last statement to pass. He says, "We are there in Ireland and it is our duty to govern." Does he mean to say that there is an English garrison in Ireland and it is the duty of the English to govern in Ireland? Docs he mean to say, therefore, that the Irish people in Ireland shall have no voice in the government of their own country?

Lord R. CECIL: I was not entering on any constitutional disquisition. We shall have to discuss a proper constitution for Ireland when the Prime Minister presents the Home Rule Bill. But for the moment the only people who have any possibility of governing there are the people who are there by the present constitutional law of the country. There is no one else who can do it. The hon. Member suggests that we ought to abandon it. Who is to maintain order? Who is to enforce the law?
Certainly we are there to protect everyone in the free exercise of their ordinary rights as citizens of a civilised country, and I think the hon. Member himself will see that it would be quite impossible for us to leave the unpopular minority in the South and West of Ireland without any protection at all. I do not know anything of Ireland except what I read in the papers, and what friends of mine tell me from their own experience, but I understand there is a regular campaign there, and not only against the Protestant minority. They are apparently being left alone. It is against the policemen and officials who have done no harm at all except to carry out their duty. I do not think any Government would be worthy of the name of a Government—I have not an unlimited admiration for the occupants of the Treasury Bench, but if they were to abandon their duty and decline to enforce law and order in Ireland my tepid admiration would be converted into profound contempt. There is no doubt at all that it is their duty to enforce the law. My only doubt is whether they are taking the best steps to enforce the law. That seems to me to be a matter which is well worthy of consideration on a proper occasion. As far as I am concerned, I should support the Government of the day in almost any measure they thought necessary to put down crime. They must be responsible for what they think is necessary, and if they ask for the wrong things it may be necessary afterwards to pass a vote of censure on them and remove them from office. But I do not think this House would ever be inclined to refuse any power that the Government demanded as necessary for the enforcement of law.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does Parliament vote against the Government on any ground?

Lord R. CECIL: They have done so. I have not a very sanguine view but I think they might do so if the Government were so monstrously wrong as to fail to enforce law and order. But I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman a question or two as to the real conditions. It may be that very exaggerated accounts reach me but I am assured that practically the law is suspended in large parts of Ireland and that it is impossible for an ordinary citizen to enforce his rights unless it is permitted by some dark authority which is not very clearly known.

Captain REDMOND: It has no law at all.

7.0 P.M.

Lord R. CECIL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says it has no law and no crime. Ail my information confirms the proposition that there is no law, but I am bound to say it is very far from confirming the proposition that there is no crime. That is a very serious state of things. As far as I can make out the state of Ireland is proceeding steadily from bad to worse. I should like to know why that is. What is it that is wrong? Is it want of some further powers? If so, let them ask for further powers. This House I am quite certain would give them any powers they want. Is it perhaps that they have by some of their measures discouraged those who are charged with the enforcement of the law? I do not know. I know there has been a very long history of Coercion Acts in Ireland. As far as I know the only one which has ever been successful was that for which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) was responsible. I believe that Act really was a great success, and did in fact put down crime. I am not sure whether I am right, but I understand that the great difference between that Coercion Act and all those which preceded it was that my right hon. Friend aimed at catching the actual criminals and nobody else. He did not bother so much about sedition and things of that kind, but when he saw a violent ruffian was guilty of maltreating cattle or boycotting somebody who was starving or in danger of his life he had summary procedure by which such a man was sent to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. That was the basis of the great success of his policy. I believe that was the central principle of his Coercion Act. Up to then the great specific had been the suspension of the Habaeas Corpus Act, the making of large arrests of suspected people thought to be dangerous to the peace, who were locked up as first-class misdemeanants for a certain number of months, and if there was found no definite crime on which they could be charged they were let out again. I believe that system of coercion was entirely a failure, and is now generally condemned. I should like to know from the Chief Secretary, if he thinks it right to reply in this debate, whether there is anything to be said for the view that the form of coercion that is being adopted in
Ireland at the present moment is not that which is best fitted for putting down crime. I recognise the enormous difficulty of his position, and there is nothing? wish to say in this Debate that would in any way hamper or interfere with him in the execution of his extremely difficult task. If he says he is satisfied that the things that are being done by the Government are the only things that can be done in the present conditions in Ireland, then I shall have nothing more to say. But I do feel very strongly on this point, and I think it right to put it forward. I know there is a very strong feeling outside and great uneasiness about Ireland. People are asking, "How is it that this thing goes on and on and gets worse and worse? Is it quite certain that the Government are doing the right thing?" I venture to express that doubt so that my right hon. Friend may have an opportunity to reply. At the same time I must express in the strongest possible way my entice dissent from the general propositions laid down by the hon. Gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Devlin). It is the duty of the Government to enforce the law, and, so far as I am concerned, I am prepared to give any vote or take any action which would assist the Government in that direction.

Captain REDMOND: I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I feel impelled to do so after the speech of the noble Lord. I was perhaps hasty in interrupting him, but I could not contain myself. With a considerable portion of his speech I am in agreement; but I am not in agreement with other portions. I cannot for one moment allow the statement to pass that it is the duty of this country to govern Ireland. It is not the duty of this country to govern Ireland. According to every right principle it is the duty and the sole right of the people resident in Ireland, Irishmen and others, to govern that country. The noble Lord spoke as though this House could be composed of non-Irishmen, and that they should govern Ireland. Would he say the same of Australia or Canada? Would he say that Australia or Canada are less British than Ireland? They are considerably more so. But he does not say that this country should govern Australia, New Zealand, Canada or South Africa. He wound up his interesting speech by discussing the form of remedy for the present deplorable condition of affairs in
Ireland. They are deplorable, lamentable and tragic. What is going to be the end? He was discussing the forms of remedy, the forms of coercion, as if coercion were the only remedy. He said that if the Chief Secretary could show him that the present form of coercion was better than another form of coercion for the present state of affairs he would be in favour of it. Why did not the noble Lord discuss the only form of remedy, and that is what form of liberty can you give the people and, therefore, ensure for ever the peace and contentment of that land? It was not a form of coercion that made South Africa what it is to-day. Campbell-Bannerman did not discuss what form of coercion he would apply to South Africa in order to turn South Africa into a law-abiding self-governing and loyal portion of the Empire. I appeal to the noble Lord to turn his mind away from the discussion of which form of coercion will be the proper remedy for the ills of Ireland, and to turn his eyes towards the only remedy, discuss it, go into the pros and cons of this form of liberty and the other, because it is only a form of liberty and never a form of coercion which will remedy the Irish case.
I want to associate myself with my two colleagues in the steps they are taking against this Bill. I oppose it root and branch as a Member of this House, and as an Irish Member, especially as it-regards Ireland. We know that an arrangement has been come to, and it is a sorry thing that an arrangement has been come to, between certain sections as to facilitating the passage of this Bill. Small though we may be in number, and much as we have lost in our own country through the deeds and the betrayals of your Ministers and statesmen in this House and in this country, we will be no party to allowing this measure to go through any stage of its proceedings unopposed. We will with our voice and with our vote oppose this measure root and branch. We will oppose it in the Committee stage and on the Report-stage. Never can it be said hereafter that the few Irish Members remaining in this House voted in favour of the application of the Defence of the Realm Act either to Great Britain or to Ireland, and never shall it be said that we were party to the continuance of an emergency system which was brought in during the War
and is now being foisted upon the country by a Parliament which has already lost the confidence of the people of the country. We are anxious to hear what the Chief Secretary may have to say in reply. Not only personally but politically we may sympathise with the Chief Secretary; but what can he say? He has no defence to make. There is only one possible way out of the position. The whole policy of the Irish Government is the old policy of "What we have said we have said." If a measure is introduced into Ireland, if an order is made in Ireland, or if any action is taken by the Irish Executive, no matter if it is proved to be of no value and to be exasperating and futile, it does not matter so far as-the Irish Executive is concerned. With them, it is a case of "what we have said we have said." That is their policy, and I presume that is the policy which will be propounded by the Chief Secretary. Once more he can only float round the old vicious circle. Ho will say that because of the condition of things in Ireland we cannot do otherwise. It is because they did not do otherwise that the condition of Ireland is what it is, and so the vicious circle goes round. I wish the Chief Secretary would speak to-night as he spoke years ago when he was a strong Radical supporter of the principles which we on these Benches have not yet deserted. If he would come forward and confess that the present state of Ireland is impossible of a remedy except by one means, and that he was the man to shoulder the responsibility for giving to the Irish people as great a measure of liberty as Canada, Australia or any portion of the Empire. If he did that, he would be doing the best day's work for this country, for this Parliament and for Ireland.

Sir G. HEWART: A debate upon Ireland, especially when it is conducted by Irishmen, is so interesting that it seems a pity at any time to interrupt it. The House has listened this afternoon to Irish history, to Irish biography and to Irish autobiography.

Mr. DEVLIN: And to English tyranny.

Sir G. HEWART: It has heard from one quarter indignant rhetoric and from another quarter an interim manifesto. After that, I am afraid I am perpetrating an anti-climax in reminding the House that the question we are discussing is
whether the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill shall be read a second time.

Captain REDMOND: Does that not affect Ireland?

Sir G. HEWART: I propose to resist the temptation, great as it is, to follow some of my Irish friends into the regions that they so skilfully traversed, and to pursue the task of answering some of the questions which have been put to me in regard to the Bill as a whole. The hon. and gallant Member (Captain Benn) made the pleasant suggestion that the Government might very well wait a few months, for the reason that many months must elapse before peace is made with Turkey. I hope that estimate is unduly pessimistic. At any rate, if it be sound, what is the suggestion? That we should refrain from continuing by statute the enactments and regulations to which this Bill refers for many months to come. If that be the right view, and if that view foe sincerely put forward, the Government by this Bill are taking much less than they possess already. By this Bill the regulations are not continued to a later date than 31st August next. More than one hon. Member has put questions as to that date, 31st August. I repeat now what I said a couple of hours ago that that date does not represent—and if anyone who takes the trouble to look at the Bill they will see that it does not represent—the date to which the regulations must continue. It represents only the date to which the regulations may continue, and the Bill expressly provides that any one of these regulations, or all of them, may be revoked as soon as it is consistent with the national interest to revoke them. The hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Scott) asked me another question which has a bearing upon that point, namely, whether it can be said' to be the policy of the Government to put an end as soon as may be to these exceptional enactments and regulations. To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the policy of the Government. It is precisely for that reason that the proviso to which I have referred is contained in the Bill. It is not proposed that it must be continued until the date named, but it is hoped that the regulations may be brought earlier to an end.
It was urged by more than one hon. Member, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Platting Division of Manchester (Mr. Clynes), that this Bill was a Bill which is hard to follow. I would suggest that it is really a very proper, exact and skilful piece of draughtsmanship. We had a considerable number of statutory enactments and Regulations which appeared to the Government and to the Departments immediately concerned to be necessary to continue for a time. Assuming that proposition, was it to be carried out by having a separate Bill for every one of these enactments or Begulations? That would be intolerable. What the draughtsman has done and done clearly and with no little ingenuity, and producing an excellent and intelligible result, is thi3. He has put the Acts into one schedule and the date to which they are to run into another, and he has put the Regulations into a schedule, and in another schedule the modifications with which they are to be continued. Complaint was made that in order to understand this Bill you must have recourse to the Acts of Parliament to which it refers and the Regulations which it proposes to continue. Of course you must, but does that present any difficulty to Members of this House and, if it is difficult, how is that difficulty going to be diminished by multiplying your Bill by the number of measures which are to be continued? If I may say a word on behalf of those who are never able to say a word on behalf of themselves, I submit that this Bill, far from being a piece of work for which any apology is required, is an excellent product of the draughtsman's art and within the time which was available for dealing with this problem, the work could hardly have been better done.
When one comes to reply to the detailed criticism of this measure it is found that what is complained of is not what it contains but what it omits. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting has said that in the original Bill with all its imperfections there was a useful power whereby the Transport Minister could in proper cases, obtain control of canals, and he deplores the fact that in the revised and abbreviated Bill that power is omitted. It is omitted because it ceases to be necessary, because by Section 3 of the Transport Act the Minister is given not for a time but in all
proper cases the power which was given to him by this Regulation. It is not that the power is no longer available. It is that by an existing Act he has got all the necessary powers.

Mr. CLYNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people interested in this particular Question have made representations to the Transport Minister, and have sought access to him by deputation, but have received no response?

Sir G. HEWART: It is quite obvious that I myself of my own knowledge cannot answer that, but I am told by my hon. Friend (Mr. Neal) that he is not aware of any such application or refusal;. but however that may be, on the substance of the matter the explanation of the omission is, that that which is omitted is omitted because it has ceased to be necessary. Then another hon. and gallant Member called attention to the fact that in the amended Bill we do not propose to continue certain Acts to give compensation for injuries that had occurred during the War to persons like minesweepers who suffered injury after the War had concluded owing to acts done during the War. That was a matter which concerned two Departments, the Admiralty and the War Office. Both those Departments have looked into the matter and have come to the conclusion that we can omit that emergency provision. There was a suggestion, which I agree deserves consideration, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. L. Scott), who desires that the Bill should provide that, where it continues Regulations, no more validity should be given to these Regulations through their being continued by this Bill than they had before. I quite agree that that raises an important question of principle, and between the present stage and the Report stage I will consider whether we can do that. Meantime may I endeavour to disabuse my hon. and learned Friend of a belief which he appeared to have? He seemed to say that Regulations which had been held to be invalid by the Courts were proposed to be continued by this Bill.

Mr. L. SCOTT: No. In cases in which the Courts have held the regulations to be
invalid I do not suggest that this Bill proposes to continue those regulations. I do not think that that is the case.

Sir G. HEWART: I apologise to my hon. and learned Friend for having misunderstood him. The Bill does not propose to do any such thing. It was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle under Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), that this Bill gave so very little power that it was not worth while proceeding with it and I think that he went so far as to say that it had been put in as a stopgap because we had no other Bill. Those of us who took part in the deliberations of the Committee are aware that a great deal of time and trouble were expended upon this Bill and it is introduced at this very earliest state of the session in order to get it passed into law so as to make the final Orders in Council under the Termination of the War (Definition) Act, which cannot be made until this Bill in some form is passed into law. I will not attempt to add to what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Henry) upon the Irish aspect of the question, but I ask the House now, after this third or fourth discussion—or for those of us who were in Committee this twentieth or thirtieth discussion—of some of the main points contained in the Bill.

Mr. SCOTT: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down would he refer to the other question which I put for his consideration as to whether, if there be any right under the law existing to-day, it should be preserved in the Bill to those who have it?

Sir G. HEWART: I thought that that part of my hon. and learned Friend's inquiry was an aspect of what I have already explained—that the Bill was not giving to any regulation validity superior to that which it now possesses. I trust that the Bill will now be given a Second Reading.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to omit Ireland? If so he will get the Bill without any further discussion.

Sir G. HEWART: I am afraid that I cannot do that, anxious as I always am to comply with any reasonable request on the part of my hon. Friend. I now ask the House to give this Bill a Second
Reading, and when we pass, as we shall then pass, to the Committee stage, I will move an Amendment which will have the effect of making a Report stage necessary, and when we come to the Report stage, if anything remains to be thrashed out it can be thrashed out then.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman report progress immediately after he gets the Second Reading, or does he wish to proceed to the Committee stage?

Sir G. HEWART: I think that my hon. Friend was not here, but the arrangement was—

Mr. DEVLIN: We have nothing to do with any arrangement.

Sir G. HEWART: It has already been said by one of the hon. Members that he will not hold himself bound by that arrangement, but the arrangement made by those whom it binds is that we should have the Committee stage after the Second Reading.

Major BARNES: One or two things said by the Attorney-General make it necessary for something to be said on this side. An impression might be conveyed that the arrangement spoken of by the Attorney-General was an arrangement made with the intention of facilitating the passing of this Bill. That was not the intention. The intention was to prevent the Bill being carried over from fast Session. With regard to the Bill itself, I agree with the Attorney-General that it was excellently and skilfully prepared. There can be no doubt that the Defence of the Realm Regulations have been smoothed out by the draughtsmen of the Bill. Both in Committee and in this House, everyone who has given consideration to this Bill has been helped by the extreme courtesy and lucidity of the Attorney-General. Despite that fact I cannot think that the arguments of the Attorney-General are arguments for the passage of the Bill now. They may very well be arguments

Division No. 5.]
AYES.
[7.35 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Barnett, Major R. W.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Barnston, Major Harry
Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Barrand, A. R.
Blair, Major Reginald


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas


Baird, John Lawrence
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.


Baldwin, Stanley
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Breese, Major Charles E.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Bridgeman, William Clive

for the passage of the Bill some future time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman began by emphasising the fact that it was a very different Bill from that which was brought in. As I listened to him expatiating on the size of the original Bill and how at every stage the Bill had diminished I could not help feeling that there was gathering round the discussion not so much the atmosphere of the House of Commons as the atmosphere of Maskelyne and Cook, and that we were having another illustration not of the vanishing lady but of the vanishing Bill.

The Government appear to look upon this Bill in somewhat the same fashion as a cook looks upon a stock pot—as a receptacle for all sorts of odds and ends, the use of which is not understood at the particular moment, but which it is hoped may be found of value at some future date. The Attorney-General went on to commend the Bill not so much for what is in it as for what is not in it. Every illustration ho gave seems to show the reasonableness of postponing its passage into law. Since the Bill appeared before the House, essential matters have been taken out of it and have found their place in other permanent Acts. Some have gone into the Housing Act and some into the Transport Act. There is no immediate necessity for passing the Bill into law now. No one wants it. None of the Regulations is cared for. It may be that the time will come when it is necessary to continue some of these Regulations, but that time has not yet arrived. If it should arrive it will be a simple matter for the Government to ask for their immediate passage into law. Last year the Government were able to get the Profiteering Bill through in one day, and it is perfectly obvious that if occasion should arise for these regulations to be continued the Government will be able to do what they wish.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes. 219: Noes, 61,

Brittain, Sir Harry
Guest, Major O. (Leic., Loughboro')
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Neat, Arthur


Brown, T. W. (Down North)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Ball, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hanna, George Boyle
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Oman, Charles William C.


Butcher, Sir John George
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.


Campbell, J. D. G.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Camplon, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hills, Major John Waller
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Carr, W. Theodore
Hinds, John
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Casey, T. W.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W


Cautley, Henry S.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Hopkins, John W. W
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pratt, John William


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Purchase, H. G.


Chadwick, R. Burton
Hurd, Percy A.
Rae, H. Norman


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A. (Birm. W.)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Ramsden, G. T.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Jesson, C.
Rees, Sir John D. (Nottingham, East)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H H. Spender
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Reid, D. D.


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Johnson, L. S.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Jones, Sir Evan (Penbroke)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Janes, J. T. (Carma-then, Llanelly)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Courthope, Major George L.
Kellaway, Frederick George
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Seddon, J. A.


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.)
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shaw, William T. (Fortar)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Dawes, James Arthur
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Denison-Pender, John C.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Stewart Gershom


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Lloyd, George Butler
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Donald, Thompson
Lloyd-Greame, Major p.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Edgar, Clifford B.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sugden, W. H.


Edge, Captain William
Lonsdale, James Rolston
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Lorden, John William
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Taylor, J.


Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Lynn, R. J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lyon, Laurance
Tryon, Major George Clement


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Waddington, R.


Falcon, Captain Michael
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Wallace, J.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
M'Guffin, Samuel
Waring, Major Walter


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


FltzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Whitla, Sir William


Gardiner, James
Macieod, J. Mackintosh
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Bas'gst'ke)
Macmaster, Donald
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Glyn, Major Ralph
Macquisten, F. A.
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Moles, Thomas
Winterton, Major Earl


Gould, James c.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.



Gregory, Holman
Morrison, Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gretton, Colonel John
Mosley, Oswald
Lord E. Talbot and Capt Guest.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Murray, Lt.-Col. C. D. (Edinburgh)





NOSE


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Hall, F. (York, W. B., Normanton)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hancock, John George
O'Connor, Thomas P.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Onions, Alfred


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hayward, Major Evan
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Cairns, John
Holmes, J. Stanley
Redmond, Captain William Archer


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Robertson, John


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kenyon, Barnet
Rose, Frank H.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Royce, William Stapleton


Devlin, Joseph
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Sitch, Charles H.


Finney, Samuel
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Galbraith, Samuel
M alone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Spoor, B. G.


Glanville, Harold James
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Grundy, T. W.
Myers, Thomas
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)




Tootill, Robert
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Williams, John (Glamorgan, Gower)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Waterson, A. E.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)



Wignall, James
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhbughton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hogge and Mr. G. Thorne.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill.—[Sir G. Hewart.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Clause 1 (Continuance of certain emergency Acts), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Continuance of certain Defence of the Realm Regulations).

"(1) The Defence; of the Realm Regulaions mentioned in the first column of the Second Schedule to this Act shall, subject to the limitations, qualifications, and modifications specified in the third column of that schedule, continue in force until the thirty-first day of August nineteen hundred and twenty, and as so continued shall have effect as if enacted in this Act:

Provided that it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council to revoke in whole or in part any of the regulations so continued as soon as it appears to him that consistently with the national interest any such regulation can be so revoked.

(2) If after the termination of the present War any person is guilty of an offence under any regulation made under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, for the time being in force, he shall be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and fine, and the court may in any case order that any goods or money in respect of which the offence has been committed be forfeited:

Provided that—

(a) a prosecution for any such offence shall not in England and Ireland be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney-General for England or Ireland, as the case may be, or by an officer of the police, or by a person acting in each case under a special authority from the Government department concerned; and
(b) in Ireland the court of summary jurisdiction, when hearing and determining an information or complaint in respect of any such offence shall, in the Dublin metropolitan police district, be constituted of one of the divisional justices of that district, and elsewhere be constituted of a resident magistrate sitting alone or with one or more other resident
626
magistrates, and the court of quarter sessions when hearing and determining an appeal against a conviction of a court of summary jurisdiction for any such offence shall be constituted of the recorder or county court judge sitting alone.

(3) The Defence of the Realm (Food Profits) Act, 1918, shall continue in force so long as any order made by the Food Controller under the powers continued by this Act regulating the price of any goods continues in force.

(4) If immediately before the passing of this Act a proclamation suspending the operation of section one of the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) Act, 1915, in respect of any area is in force, then, as respects that area, all the Defence of the Realm Regulations then in force shall, subject to the power of His Majesty in Council by order to revoke any of such regulations, continue in force until the expiration of twelve months after the termination of the present War, subject, as respects any regulations modified by the Second Schedule to this Act, to the modifications therein contained, save so far as those modifications limit the operation of the regulations, and those regulations as so continued shall have effect as if enacted in this Act; and in that area offences against the said regulations I shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, continue to be triable and punishable in like manner as if the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, and the Acts amending that Act continued in force, except that where any such offence is tried by a court of summary jurisdiction or, on appeal, by a court of quarter sessions, the court shall be constituted as hereinbefore provided:

Provided that, if the said proclamation is revoked before the expiration of the said twelve months, this section shall, as from the date of the revocation, apply in respect of the area in question in like manner as it applies in respect of the rest of the United Kingdom."

Mr. O'CONNOR: I beg to move, to leave out sub-section (4).
Whilst I was dealing with the Bill on Second Reading most of my observations were directed to this particular sub-section, and therefore I do not feel called upon to repeat the arguments which I used on that occasion. Let me sum them up. This sub-section has the effect, without mentioning Ireland, of extending the provisions of what is popularly known as D.O.R.A. for a considerably longer period in Ireland than in England. The Act is practically to come to an end on the 31st of August in England, whereas in Ireland
it can be kept in existence until 12 months after the termination of the war, which means when all the treaties have been concluded, so that in effect it can be continued for a year after it has ceased in England. I think that is unfair as between England and Ireland. I think also that it is part of a policy which, I hold, has abjectly failed in Ireland in putting down disorder or crime. This indirect way of passing such a provision to apply to Ireland is contrary to all the traditions of the House. One of the first businesses I had to do as a young Member of this now asked by a side wind and by a protest against a Coercion Bill. We are now asked by a side wind and by a camouflage to pass a renewal of a Coercion Act for Ireland. I feel bound to make my strong protest against such a proceeding, and therefore I move the amendment.

Sir G. HEWART: I am sorry that at the moment my right hon. Friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland, does not happen to be present The words to which the hon. Member has referred are followed by a very important proviso, as follows:—
Provided that if the said proclamation is revoked before the expiration of the said twelve months this section shall, as from the date of the revocation, apply in respect of the area in question in like manner as it applies in respect of the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member will observe, I am sure, from that proviso coupled with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 that however he may regard this Bill it is temporary, provisional and revocable.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General entirely fails to appreciate the passionate desire we all have to hear his views on the Irish question. I am one of those who was associated with him in one of the historic elections in Manchester, and I remember that he clothed with far more beauty and eloquence his words in favour of Ireland than I did. We have changed since then, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is greatly mistaken if he thinks that we are not most anxious to hear his views on the Irish question. My only recollection of his contributions to the debates in the House during the unhappy twelve months that have come and gone is that he was the
instrument and eloquent spokesman of the Government in these attempts to fetter liberty in Ireland, and I am not aware that there has ever fallen from his lips one word of sympathy with the just claims and aspirations of the people of Ireland. It seems to me a rather curious thing how office freezes the enthusiasm of young politicians who are anxious to play a large part in the affairs of the Empire. If people are to trust English public men, and I do not think there are many people who do trust them, but if there are any left, one would imagine that the way to preserve that trust would be for a politician engaged in his activities for Parliamentary glory to ensure, when he got into office, that he kept those promises made during what the right hon. Gentleman referred to in a previous speech as his predestrianism along the paths of great ideals and devotion to the cause of liberty, so that when he reached the end of the march he might reach a stage when he would be able to materialise the promises which he had given to the electorate. Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely mistaken if he thinks that we do not want to hear his views on the Irish question. I would like to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, does he approve of the suppression of newspapers? Is that consonant with the spirit of British Liberalism? Does he think that public meetings ought to be broken up by armed forces of the Crown, and not necessarily meetings of republicans, but even meetings of consitutional nationalists called together to discuss industrial and economic questions, because the sweaters and masters of the Ulster Unionist Party, who are your masters also, do not like to hear their sweating masters criticised by politicians like myself.
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, docs he approve of arresting lord mayors in Ireland and putting them in gaol without a trial or any charge against them, or without giving either the lord mayors or his friends an opportunity of defending themselves. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a great lawyer. Some of the great lawyers of this country have risen to the Bench. They are now judges in this country, and I must say for the judges of this country that I do not think any citizen of England has much right to complain of the way in which they stand by the liberties of the people
of this country. But then most of them are not political hacks as in Ireland, because in Ireland you have only to be a hanger-on of the Government without brains in order to be a judge. At the present time rebels in Ireland are being tried by ex-rebels. The present condition there is as if you brought a number of children on a charge of petty larceny before a jury of burglars. That is the parallel I make of the position that exists. There, potential rebels, because I do not know whether they would ever have been real rebels since I do not think the instinct for self-sacrifice was there, are on the Bench whilst the real rebels are in the prisons. You have won for the real rebels the confidence of the country. You have got the Defence of the Realm Act and all the humbug and fraud that is carried on in the name of the British Government, I will not say the British people. I do not see what right yon have to pass any Act at all. You have rigged your-majorities and you march them like sheep into the Lobby. You plaster them with your coupons and tests and you tell them to register their votes whatever way you like. The minute you face the outraged electorate of Great Britain they tell you what I tell you, that you have no moral right to pass legislation for Ireland, because you have no authority over Ireland or over England, because the English people have rejected you at every election that has taken place since the General Election and since they got to know you. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Nowcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) with tearful voice recited just now the story of a poor man arrested in this country for telling lies and sent to gaol. If everybody is going to be arrested for telling lies we would have nobody to govern us and the Government would be all in prison since you could not believe a word or a promise that comes from their lips. These are the gentlemen who are governing Ireland and want to put this Bill into operation in Ireland. We will vote against it. I am going to move later on, that this Bill shall not apply to Ireland, and I am going to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Northern friends the opportunity, if they like, of moving that this Act shall apply to the six Ulster counties. If we are going to have any luxuries here is a luxury for the Ulster counties. The right hon. and learned Gentleman when I move that the
Bill shall not apply to Ireland can send for his friends from Belfast, and they can move that the Bill shall only apply to the six counties.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I think it would be very interesting to the House if the Attorney-General would develop somewhat the cryptic utterance with which he sought to satisfy the House when he asked my hon. Friend (Mr. O'Connor) to note the fact that there was a proviso at the end of this Clause whereby the proclamations could be withdrawn. What did he mean by that? Did he mean to give us to understand that important changes are pending in the Irish Executive and that there is going to be a reversal of the coercion policy and that these proclamations are merely going to be withdrawn before they run their natural course? If he did not mean that, what did he mean by calling attention to the existence of the proviso? I think he did mean something, or, otherwise, it is too Gladstonian for ordinary politicians to understand, and his utterance is wrapped up in great ambiguity and in a great mass of words. I would much prefer him to tell us frankly what he is driving at. The right hon. and learned Gentleman used to be a Gladstonian himself. I do not know what he is now since he joined the Coalition. Ho is trying to learn, and he is succeeding very well, in wrapping his ideas in such a mass of words that nobody can make out what he is driving at. If he means that this proclamation is going to be withdrawn at an early date, he should frankly say so, and if he does not mean that, I do not see what right he has to raise the question at all. I agree entirely with my two hon. Friends who have spoken with regard to the powers conferred by these proclamations and to the manner in which they are being carried out. I do not know whether the Attorney-General for England, amidst his multifarious official duties, has time ever to give a thought to the manner in which we are governed in Ireland, but it is very interesting. We have a Box and Cox arrangement over there, and I believe the Box and Cox arrangement applies to the Cabinet also. We are supposed to be governed in Ireland by two members of the Government, one or other, or both, and we are in this unhappy position, that when we are not being governed by a
returned empty from the front, we are being governed by a gentleman who took jolly good care that he would never go to the front himself. The Cabinet, to keep up the delusion, takes one of these gentlemen in one day and the other one the next day, and we do not know to this day in Ireland which is a member of the Cabinet, and I do not think any member of the Cabinet knows, and the two gentlemen themselves are blissfully ignorant as to whether they are permanent or temporary members of that Cabinet. That is part of the administration. Beyond that, the fact is that neither of them is really governing Ireland. Nominally there is a Chief Secretary in charge at the present time, but he does not count. He is of no importance whatever in the administration. His private secretary has more to do with the government of Ireland than the Chief Secretary himself, and the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, in carrying out the provisions of this Act, has also more power actually than the Lord Lieutenant.
But we go beyond that to the Assistant Under-Secretary for Ireland, Sir John Taylor, who assisted the "Times" in the preparation of the case against the late Mr. Parnell, and who was of such a mercantile disposition that he first of all got paid by the Government for the services which he rendered to the "Times" newspaper, and then he wrote to the "Times" demanding that he should be paid by them also. The "Times" sent the correspondence to the Government and said, "We have received this claim from one of your officials for services rendered in attacking the Irish party; what do you think we ought to do?" The Government said, "You ought to pay him," and he got paid twice for the work of calumniating his own countrymen, and that is the gentleman who is administering D.O.R.A. in Ireland to-day. I do not know whether be will get paid twice now or not, and I do not know whether he has any other source of income than his Government salary, but that gentleman goes to the Kildare Street Club, the headquarters of Irish landlordism, and he gets his instructions there, and that is how Ireland is governed to-day. What is the result? We have no institutions such as those of which Englishmen are justly proud; they
find no place in the public life of Ireland to-day.
Take trial by jury. We heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson) asking to-day in the most plaintive tone when trial by jury was going to be restored in civil cases. We are more concerned to know when trial by jury is going to be restored to the Irish people. The Attorney-General for Ireland does not know. He does not know how long he will be on that Bench, and he does not care very much what the policy is. But the Attorney-General for England hears a whole lot more of what is going on behind the scenes, and he might be able to throw a little light upon that problem, as to when we are going to have trial by jury restored to us in Ireland. At present the only experience we have of trial in Ireland in political cases is trial by drumhead court-martial, or by resident magistrates who receive their instructions as to the sentences they are to pass from Dublin Castle. Another thing that has disappeared in Ireland is the liberty of the subject. Men can be arrested in Ireland to-day under the Defence of the Realm Acts without any conviction being recorded against them, without any charge having been preferred against them, and you have got in Wormwood Scrubs Prison at present not merely the Lord Mayor of Dublin, but over one hundred Irishmen against whom you have preferred no charge and obtained no conviction, but you arrested them and took them away from their own country, and you have interned them here. Is that Liberalism? Is that even an English Unionist's idea of the liberty of the subject?

Mr. DEVLIN: You told the Germans what charges there were against them, but not the Irishmen.

Mr. MacVEAGH: These gentlemen can obtain no information, and the only approach to information we can get is when the Chief Secretary gets up yesterday and asks the House of Commons to be satisfied with the assurance that these gentlemen are in custody and removed from their own country and interned here because they are thought to be suspected of being about to commit some offence which the Government did not like. No information even as to what the offence is that they are suspected of being about
to commit, but simply that some official like Sir John Taylor or the Chief Secretary's private secretary thinks they are about to commit an offence. But it is not only the politicians who are imprisoned without trial. The Government arrest under these provisions even children and take them away from the control of their parents and keep them for months in Dublin in police custody, and the defence was put up when they were brought into court on a Habeas Corpus motion that it was in the interests of the safety of the Empire that they arrested these children and took them away from the custody and control of their parents, the real object being of course, to frighten and intimidate these children into giving evidence such as the police desire in any particular case. But it is not merely the liberty of the subject that has gone.
I have spoken of the politicians and how they are treated, and I have told you how the children are treated, but they arrest the girls, too. Very respectable girls going out soiling flags on behalf of the Gaelic League or any other political organisation in Ireland, or any other educational organisation, are arrested and imprisoned under this Act as though they were the vilest criminals. Girls can sell flags in the streets of London and of every city in England, but if they try to do it in Ireland and they are political opponents of the Government, those girls are thrown into prison under the Defence of the Realm Acts. So much for the liberty of the subject. But what about the freedom of the Press? Is there any freedom of the Press in Ireland such as all Englishmen love? No; that, too, is a thing of the past. This Government has suppressed over thirty newspapers in Ireland since it came into office, and do not imagine that it is merely Republican newspapers that they suppress. I deny the right of any Government to suppress any newspaper, even when it is advocating the establishment of a Republic. It is a perfectly legitimate point of view in this country or in any other country, and I deny their right to suppress any newspaper, whether in London, or Birmingham, or Dublin, that is advocating a republic, on that ground alone. I deny the right to do it. But the Government has suppressed them all ruthlessly, and it has suppressed Labour organs in Dublin—seven or eight of them—because they
advocated the support of the Republican party. But they have also suppressed the organs of the constitutional Nationalists, such as "The Cork Examiner" and the "Freeman's Journal," two of the most powerful daily newspapers in Ireland, which supported the policy of my late friend and colleague, Mr. John Redmond, which have at all times, and in face of all opposition, been the stalwart supporters of the constitutional movement in Ireland. They were treated the same as the Republican organs, because they were opposed to the Government in power to-day. Therefore, I say, the freedom of the Press is at an end.
How does freedom of speech stand under the Defence of the Realm Act? There are seventy-two or so Sinn Fein Members in Ireland, and not one of them is allowed to address his constituents, because he is a political opponent of the Government. The Attorney-General for Ireland knows that every statement I have made is absolutely true, and cannot be contradicted. Not one of these Sinn Fein Members of Parliament is allowed to address his constituents. What do Englishmen think of that state of affairs? What would you think if men, simply because they were opponents of the Government in power to-day, were told, for that reason, that every meeting they attempted to address in their own constituency would be suppressed; The liberty of the subject, the freedom of the press, and the freedom of speech are things that no longer exist in Ireland in consequence of the operation of this Act. More than that, over 12,000 private houses in Ireland have been raided by police and military under the Defence of the Realm Act. The houses of over 12,000 people have been entered, nearly all of them in the dead of night, and terror has been struck into the hearts of the inhabitants by these armed military going in with their drawn swords, sticking their swords and rifles into bedding and walls and everywhere else for things that are not there—searching for rifles and ammunition, and yet, in point of fact, in not one per cent. of the raids on private houses have they discovered anything to justify this inroad on the sanctity of the home. That is going on to this hour all over Ireland. These raids are being carried on with impunity.
But I ask the House to note this very interesting fact. There were more rifles,
smuggled in the Province of Ulster by the right hon. Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson) and his friends than were ever smuggled in by the Sinn Feiners. But there has never been a raid carried out in the home of any Ulster Unionist. They have never gone there to look for rifles. These were German rifles got from the German Government, with the connivance of the ex-Kaiser, whom the Attorney-General is now going to prosecute—at least, so he promises. Of course, he has no intention of doing it, but he promised at the General Election that he would hang the Kaiser. He is not likely to do it. But this Kaiser facilitated the export of arms from Germany to Ulster, and is it not very remarkable that when they are raiding 12,000 private houses in Ireland looking for arms, not even by accident have they happened to stroll into a house occupied by any Ulster Unionist who has got the arms obtained from the Kaiser?
I say this Act has been administered in a grossly partisan manner. It is being used for political purposes, and used by the Government for the persecution of political opponents, and this House ought to be very chary indeed in allowing such powers to be conferred. Thousands of Irishmen, moreover, have been court-martialled for violation of this Act. They have been court-martialled for having in their possession newspapers of which the Government did not approve. It was enough to secure for them savage sentences by court-martial—for having even newspapers which the Government themselves did not suppress. And if you go out and deliver a speech in Ireland, even a speech which is mildness itself compared with some of the speeches delivered by Ulster Unionists in the days when they were preaching civil war, mildness itself in comparison with speeches by the Leader of the House during the Ulster campaign, these men are sentenced to twelve months' and two years' hard labour up and down the country, but no Ulster Unionist, no matter what he threatens, is ever put upon his trial by court-martial. The only justification I hear for the maintenance of this policy in Ireland is that crimes have taken place in Ireland. The first thing that any politician ought to learn is, that it is not crime that produces coercion. It is coercion that pro-
duces crime. You have had nearly five years of repression in Ireland, and it is only within the past few months that you have had the outburst of crime.
Therefore it is not difficult to trace the cause and the effect. You have smashed the Constitutional party in Ireland by your administration of this Defence of the Realm Act. At the door of the Government, and at the door of the Government alone, must be laid the responsibility for the failure of the Constitutional movement in Ireland. Every act which this Government takes in Ireland seems to be deliberately designed further to discredit the advocates of constitutionalism. These courts-martial have been for the most frivolous charges, and have inflicted the most savage sentences. I wonder what the Government really thinks is going to be the effect of sentences of that kind? When these men are released from prison do you think they are going to be loyal, and do you think their children are going to be loyal subjects? No, Sir, the Government has set out, under the direction of a vicious and pestiferous nest of politicians in Dublin, to persecute those men who differ from them. The Government has already reaped the harvest. In the course of its operations, as I say, it has destroyed the Constitutional movement. But when the defence is put up that it is because of crime, I say that more civilians have been killed by police and military in Ireland during the last two or three years than there have been police or military killed by civilians. Only the other night in Limerick a crowd of police and military were let loose and fired upon the people.

The CHAIRMAN: This is going really a good deal beyond the Sub-section.

Mr. MacVEAGH: It is, I agree. I was seeing how far I could get. I was quite conscious I was getting far, but I wanted to point these things out to the Attorney General. It is not often we get him here to talk about the Irish Question. I am quite sure he is a sincere friend of Ireland, and I think I can say the same about his colleague the Solicitor-General. I know there is not a particle of anti-Irish feeling on their side, and I am sure they are intensely desirous of ending a system of government that is a discredit to the British Empire—a system which, as one of the London newspapers
said the other day, is making the name of the British Empire stink in the nostrils of the world. I appeal to them to use their influence to end this. It is perfectly futile to attempt to bring about the settlement of the Irish controversy in double harness with coercion. You cannot do it. You have to create an atmosphere for settlement in Ireland if you want settlement; and the way to do that is not by passing Coercion Acts such as this that we are engaged upon tonight. I would appeal to the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite to use their influence, which is considerable, with the Government to end the present administration in Ireland, to clear out the military gang, root and branch.

Division No. 6.]
AYES.
[8.22 p.m.


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Macleod, J. Mackintosh


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Glyn, Major Ralph
Macmaster, Donald


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Goff, Sir R. Park
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Baird, John Lawrence
Gould, James C.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Baldwin, Stanley
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Macquisten, F. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Moles, Thomas


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Barnett, Major R. W.
Gregory, Holman
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Barnston, Major Harry
Gretton, Colonel John
Murray, Lt.-Col. C. D. (Edinburgh)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Guest, Major O. (Leic., Loughboro')
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Guinness, Lieut. Col. Hon. W. E.
Neal, Arthur


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hanna, George Boyle
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Breese, Major Charles E.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Oman, Charles William C.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Brittain, Sir Harry
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Brown, captain D. C.
Hills, Major John Waller
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Hinds, John
Pratt, John William


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Purchase, H. G.


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Rae, H. Norman


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Ramsden, G. T.


Campbell, J. D. G.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Carr, W. Theodore
Howard, Major S. G
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Carter, R. A. D. (Man. Withington)
Hurd, Percy A.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Casey, T. W.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Chadwick, R. Burton
Jesson, C.
Seager, Sir William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Seddon, J. A.


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Johnson, L. S.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Courthope, Major George L.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Jones, J. T. (Carma then, Llanelly)
Stewart, Gershom


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.)
Keilaway, Frederick George
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kerr-Smlley, Major Peter Kerr
Sturrock, J. Leng


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Sugden, W. H.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Taylor, J.


Dawes, James Arthur
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Lewis, T. A. (Glarn., Pontypridd)
Waddington, R.


Edgar, Clifford B.
Lister, Sir J. Ashton
Wallace, J.


Edge, Captain William
Lloyd, George Butler
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lloyd-Greame, Major P.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Edwards, John H. (Giarn., Neath)
Lorden, John William
Whitla, Sir William


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Lynn, R. J.
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lyon, Laurance
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Winterton, Major Earl


Gardiner, James
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray



Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Bas'gst'ke)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Lord E. Talbot and Capt Guest.

Mr. FINNEY: Sack the lot!

Mr. MacVEAGH: "Sack the lot!" as my hon. Friend says. Let us begin another chapter in the history of Ireland, a chapter in which the Government will take as their motto: "Trust the people," and which will lead them to success. If they are to be ruled by coercion they are marching on the road to disaster.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 56.

NOSE


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Kenworthy, Lieut-Commander J. M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Lawson, John J.
Spoor, B. G.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lunn, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cairns, John
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cape, Thomas
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Tootill, Robert


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Finney, Samuel
Myers, Thomas
Waterson, A. E.


Galbraith, Samuel
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wignall, James


Glanville, Harold James
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Williams, John (Glamorgan, Gower)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Onions, Alfred
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hancock, John George
Redmond, Captain William Archer
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayward, Major Evan
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hirst, G. H.
Robertson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hogge, James Myles
Royce, William Stapleton
Mr. Devlin and Mr. J. Jones.


Holmes, J. Stanley
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

FIRST SCHEDULE.


Enactment.
Nature and Extent of Limitation.
Nature and Extent of Extension.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the First Schedule of the Bill.

Mr. ADAMSON: Evidently there is some misunderstanding as to what is the nature of the undertaking given when this Question was before the House last December. My impression was that we agreed to take the Second Reading and the Committee stage in one day. My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) seems to be under the impression that that implied that we were not moving any Amendment in the Committee stage. I do not take that view. In fact we have put down several Amendments. The Labour party will be quite willing to carry out their agreement. I understand that the Second Reading and the Committee stage were to be taken on one day, but I did not give that undertaking under the impression that there would be no Amendments moved during the Committee Stage. There is plenty of time to deal with our Amendments and get through the Committee stage in the course of this sitting. I should like to hear what the Attorney-General has to say on this point.

Sir G. HEWART: As this question has been raised I have referred to the actual words used on the 23rd of December last
year in the Debate on this Bill when there was a Motion before the House the-effect of which would have been to carry over this Bill from last Session in the form which it had reached. At the end of the discussion my light hon. Friend the-Member for Peebles said:
The Second Reading, certainly, I would regard as a matter to be dealt with, although not carried certainly to any undue length. But it is on the Second Reading where the occasion would arise for demonstrating any real difference between then and now. So far as the Committee stage, which really causes delay, is concerned, I would strongly advise my colleagues to treat that as practically a formal stage.
Those were the words actually used by the right hon. Gentleman. May I point out what reason and good sense there was behind that suggestion? At that time we had spent a great number of days in Committee, and the spirit of this; arrangement was that we were not to be prejudiced, and we were believed to have reached a position we had in fact then reached. Then the Leader of the House (Mr. Bonar Law) asked
Could you give us all these stages in one day?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles said:—
You mean the Second Reading and Committee stage—that would be a Committee of the whole House?
Then the Leader of the House said:—
I can assure the House I should be very glad indeed to arrange something of this kind. It seems it could be done if a general undertaking were given that we should be allowed to get the Second Reading and the Committee stage on the floor of the House in one day.
My right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) then said:—
I want to say that, so far as I am personally concerned, I will do my best, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks this is the better course to pursue.
I submit that it was an essential part of that arrangement that the words of my right hon. Friend implied that the Committee stage should be treated as practically a formal stage, and those remarks were made after we had spent seven days in Committee.

Mr. ADAMSON: I had not the privilege of hearing the first statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles. It has been explained to me that the discussion was as to whether the various sections of the House would agree to the Second Heading and the Committee stage being taken on one day. I agreed on behalf of our Party, and I stated that I believe our Members would give effect to the undertaking which I was giving on-their behalf, but, as I have already explained, I did it under the impression that the Second Reading and the Committee Stage were to be taken in one day, and that we should have the opportunity of moving Amendments during the Committee Stage. We do not propose to move many Amendments, and we are prepared to give effect to the undertaking which I gave that the two stages should be got through in one day. There are one or two vital Amendments which we consider are Amendments of substance.

Sir G. HEWART: Cannot you move them on the Report Stage? The fact that I have given notice of an Amendment during the Committee' Stage renders it possible to have a Report Stage.

Mr. ADAMSON: That is a point with which I was going to deal. If we are going to forego moving Amendments on the Committee Stage we can only take that course on the clear understanding that we shall be allowed a considerable amount of liberty on the Report Stage. There are points in the Bill where we consider some amendment is necessary, and we are very anxious to have the oppor-
tunity of amending the Bill in that direction. If we can have an undertaking that we shall have considerable freedom on the Report Stage I have no doubt we are prepared to consider that.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I should like to say a word with regard to the attitude of my colleagues and myself. I can say that during the forty years that the Irish party has been in this House no one has ever been able to say that any contracts entered into by the Irish party have been broken. So far as our attitude to-day is concerned, I want to make it clear that we never entered into any undertaking of any sort or description, directly or indirectly, and if we had been invited to do so, if we had been invited to enter into an agreement under which the rights and liberties of our countrymen would have been sacrificed, we should have refused. The Attorney-General understands that we never gave any undertaking not to oppose the Committee Stage, and in our action we have not departed in any degree from what we believe to be the right course.

Sir D. MACLEAN: It is not a question of accommodating the Government at all, because we thought we did very well that day. I can only say that the Attorney-General has exactly described the undertaking, as I understood it, and as we intended to carry it out to the letter.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I did not mean that either the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles or his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) entered into the agreement with the intention of accommodating the Government. We should not, under any circumstances, have entered into any compact with the Government, whether we gain by it or not.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: A good many of us who have borne the brunt of the attack on this measure in Committee and who belong to the party led by my right hon. Friend below me (Sir D. Maclean), are very anxious to move a considerable number of Amendments, and, if we are to be debarred from putting those Amendments on the Committee Stage by the joint arrangement made by the leader of the Labour party and our own Leader, we do not consider it right that the whole of the time should be monopolised by members of the Labour party. The
agreement, if binding upon anyone, should be binding upon all. I am quite ready to agree, because the Government had the power to put themselves in exactly the same position as if the Bill had passed the Committee stage, and I do not think that they ought to be placed in a worse position because they forebore to do so. Moreover, they have given us a whole day to discuss the Second Reading and the Committee stage, and we have scored on that.

Mr. ADAMSON: I must enter a protest against the statement of the hon. Member that it was a joint agreement. I have already explained that I understood the agreement was that the Second Reading and the Committee stage should be taken on the one day, and that we should not be precluded from moving Amendments on the Committee stage if time permitted. I have already said, however, that if we can get an assurance of some measure of freedom on the Report stage, there is just the possibility that we shall not proceed to move our

SECOND SCHEDULE.


REGULATIONS CONTINUED.


Number of Regulation.
Subject Matter.
Limitations, Qualifications and Modifications subject to which extension is made.


30 E, 3O EE,
Provision as to coinage and bullion



30 ERE. 30 F
Restrictions on new capital issues
Except subsections (1). (2), (3), and (5).

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, in Regulation 30F, column 3, after "(5)" to insert the words, "and paragraph B of sub-section (4)."

If this Amendment be carried, there will be a Report stage. Regulation 30 F contains various provisions as to restrictions on new capital issues and paragraph B of sub-section (4) is in these words:
No person shall, except under and in pursuance of a licence granted by the Treasury, buy or sell any stock, shares, or other securities which have at any time since the 30th September, 1914, been in physical possession outside the United Kingdom.

Amendment on the Committee stage. If I can get that undertaking, I will do my best to carry it through. I have explained frankly what I believed to be the undertaking that I gave, and that so long as it was within the one city, even if Amendments were moved, I should be carrying out to the letter that undertaking.

Sir G. HEWART: May I say that we are perfectly willing, as we always have been, that there shall be an adequate opportunity given on the Report stage for discussing Amendments. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend can go away from the House without any reproach upon his conscience, because he certainly did nothing whatever in the way of making any concession, undue or otherwise, to the Government. There was no concession.

Mr. SPOOR: Under the circumstances, I have no alternative but to let my Amendment stand over until the Report stage is reached.

Question put, and agreed to.

It is proposed to insert the restrictions on new capital issues except certain subsections. This sub-section was in the Bill, but if this Amendment be carried it will be taken out.

Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask, before the Amendment is put, whether it will preclude discussion of all other items in the Schedule which precede the Regulation which it is now proposed to amend? There are some other points on which we ought to have some explanation, especially as there is to be a Report stage.

The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment has been moved, and I am bound to put
it to the Committee. We cannot go back unless the Amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not permissible, before you put the Question, for any other Member to move an Amendment at an earlier stage so as to elicit a statement from the Attorney General? The Question has not been actually put, and I take it that no technicality would prevent any hon. Member raising any other point on which a statement was desired.

The CHAIRMAN: It could be done on the Question of the Schedule standing part of the Bill. I must take the Amendment and put it before the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule of the Bill."

Mr. MacVEAGH: I would like, for the purpose of consideration of the Bill on the Report Stage, to know what is meant by some of these limitations and qualifications and modifications set out in Column 3. I see that it is proposed to take power to continue the commandeering of hotels and other buildings for Government Departments. I think the House will want to know on the Report Stage what Departments need to commandcer for further hotels and buildings. I think the Attorney-General will find a very pronounced unwillingness on the part of the House to confer further commandeering powers on any other Government Department. Then there is a proposal to confer certain powers on the Food Controller and powers with regard to flax. Why flax comes under that section I am at a loss to understand? I read that it is proposed to take power to regulate the transport of goods as if certain words with regard to the prosecution of the War were omitted, and the real effect is that without an Act of Parliament we are to confer upon the Minister of Transport powers going beyond the powers conferred by the Transport Act, and we are to do it by a side wind—by simply omitting the words, "for the further successful prosecution of the War," and so on. That is a very dangerous precedent to establish and we are entitled to have from the Attorney-General some explanation of the proposal.
Then later on there are proposals to take over the control and maintenance of highways. There were proposals made in Committee upstairs, fought through many weary weeks on the Transport Bill and the Electricity Bill, with regard to the powers to be conferred on the Ministry of Transport in relation to the roads. Parliament deliberately conferred certain powers and withheld certain other powers, but here we find in the Schedule, practically unobserved by anybody, we are to continue these powers now as though they were still required for the Defence of the Realm. The proposal is to substitute for the words, "relating to the Defence of the Realm "the words," in the national interest "and we are going to confer on the Ministry of Transport power to take over any road he may think fit in the national interest, whereas previously roads could only be taken over when public safety demanded it or the Defence of the Realm required it. The same question arises with regard to the proposed power to restrict lighting. In fact, we are asked to pass legislation which the House has not adequately considered and which certainly has not been explained to it in any memorandum or statement by the responsible Minister. I would suggest that the Attorney-General might now give me a conclusive answer on the points I have raised. I do not think we should pass legislation in the dark, or confer powers on any Government department without knowing exactly what we are doing.

Sir G. HEWART: I shall not attempt to give my hon. and learned Friend what he calls a very conclusive answer. My answer is that all these matters were dealt with by the Committee upstairs. The proceedings of the Committee were reported in certain small volumes, and is it really to be suggested that it is a proper use of the time of the House that some hon. Member should get up and ask for an explanation of items which were explained upstairs. I am not prepared at this stage to reiterate what was perfectly explored upstairs.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I never heard the explanations upstairs. We have such a peculiar method of conducting business now that it is not surprising. I understand that the reports of the proceedings upstairs are only sent to the Members on the Committee. At any rate, I never
saw these. We are drifting into a most extraordinary condition of affairs. A Committee upstairs on which an infinitesimal number of the Members of the House serve—probably not more than twenty-five—deals with the Bill. The proceedings of the Committee are reported, but nobody ever reads the report, and are we to understand that therefore nobody in this House is to have any right to ask for an explanation? I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that will not wash on the Report stage, and we are going to have an explanation of all these things, whether one was given upstairs, or not. We want to know the object of these items in the schedule, and I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman due notice that he is not going to smuggle this Bill through, but we are going to insist on an explanation of every item we can.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — INCREASES OF WEALTH (WAR).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the proposal to impose a tax on war-time increases of wealth and to report whether such a tax is practicable; and, if so, what form it should take."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words:
Further, to inquire into the practicability of a capital levy for the specific purpose of reducing the National Debt, and to report.
9.0 P.M.
I found my Amendment on two main grounds, which I will deal with shortly. But before doing so I think I may as well state at once that I propose to keep myself as strictly as possible within the limits of order, and I presume I shall not be entitled to go into the general question of the merits of a levy on war fortunes or the larger question of a capital levy. The first ground I want to suggest to my right hon. Friend for his acceptance of the Amendment is this, that it is desirable to have an authoritative pronouncement on the practicability of a levy on capital as speedily as possible. The matter has become a party question on
wholly inadequate information on the merits of the proposal, which is of a most serious kind. Nobody can doubt, and I think indeed everyone will admit, that the question is of a most complex nature, not one to be dogmatised about without very careful inquiry as to how it can be brought into operation, and if and when brought into operation, what would be its effects upon the commerce of the nation as a whole and the justice or injustice to the individuals concerned. I have heard it claimed in one quite recent by-election to be an infallible remedy for sweeping away the whole of the National Debt, and on the other hand we have it denounced as a national misfortune to the commerce of the country and the spoliation and robbery of the individual. No fair and reasonable opportunity should be lost of getting this question into perspective and placing it on reasoned and if possible reasonable grounds. It cannot be accepted or dismissed without inquiry. Of course, the main body of what one calls high finance is against it, but it cannot be denied that there are high authorities in commerce and in the general range of the financial world, and also accepted authorities in the theory of economics, who favour it.
The second ground upon which I move my Amendment is that the problems connected with the levy on war fortunes and the levy on capital are in the main identical, and therefore this opportunity should not be lost of getting a report on both proposals. The intention of the Amendment is not to ask for a report on the question of the capital levy at the same time that a report would be required on war fortunes, but simply that this Committee should first of all make its report on the question of the taxation of war fortunes and having done that, with all the accumulated data which they have at their disposal, proceed with all convenient speed to give their opinion upon the practicability or otherwise of the capital levy. What are the questions which the Committee would have to address themselves to with regard to the proposal contained in the Motion, and how far are they relevant to the question of an inquiry into a capital levy? These inquiries inevitably overlap, or in other words one telescopes into the other, and when you go into an inquiry with regard to the ascertainment of war fortunes, the
major portion of your investigations are as applicable to founding a reasoned opinion on a capital levy as they are on war fortunes. I presume the Committee will first of all endeavour to find out what was the total of the war wealth. Can you estimate it, and if you can what does it amount to, because obviously you must know what your total is before you can propose to levy a percentage upon it. Therefore I presume the first question the Committee will address itself to is what was the broad position in 1914. You must have the datum line first and, after that, ascertain what the position is in 1919, and then the difference between those two presumably would be the war increase of wealth which, if the Chancellor of Exchequer adopts an affirmative view by the Committee, he would propose to tax. My first point is that an inquiry into the position in 1914 and the position in 1919 for the purpose of war fortunes leaves you in possession of the necessary information for the capital levy, as to what was the position in 1919. Presumably for the capital levy you will not want to go further back than the actual position in the given year at the time the levy is to be presumed to be made.

The next question, I presume, would be how in the valuation to be made? That is perhaps the greatest difficulty of all. Here, again, it is impossible for the Committee to consider the best return of the value for war fortunes without at the same time considering what would be the best form of return for the ascertainment of capital for the purposes of the capital levy also, and, indeed, we really come to it that the whole basis upon which you work finally is the basis of the 1919 return. Having got your 1914 datum line you have the information also for dealing with the question of the capital levy. I should like to give the House specimens of a probable return which would have to be made. Take the 1914 return. I will give the totals as they have been estimated for me. Take land and houses, Consols, and other commercial investments. Take £17,000 as being the total subject to be taxed for 1914. Take the return B for 1919. Take the land, and new houses with fresh furniture and other commercial investments, and investments in War Loan to be a total of £102,000. That would leave an increase during the war period of, say, £85,000, but, of course,
there must be deducted from that, as inevitably arises in all taxation proposals, claims for exemption. First you would allow an amount up to the line which you were not going to tax. It might be the first £500 or the first £1,000. I do not know what it is. In most of the orations on this subject I have noticed that the amount of the exemption varies very much according to the class of audience the speaker happens to be addressing. Whatever it may be, you would have to ascertain what was the normal saving of the man during a particular period at so much a year. If a man put on one side £1,000 a year, you must allow that to him, because that is obviously not a war accretion. Then you come to the business items, such as expenditure on capital account. If it is a rubber estate, there is the amount spent on planting trees. Obviously you must allow for these capital expenditures which have produced the increase of the wealth. Again, suppose that the person about to be taxed has rendered exceptional service to the State, you probably would not include that in his assessment for the purpose of this special tax. Again, you must allow for money which has been inherited. Whether it is £250 or £50,000, it is not a part of his war profits. He did not make that out of the War, and obyiously that has to be dealt with in a way which is fair and just.

Suppose we put the whole of these things, on the figures I have given, at £34,500. That leaves the War profits to be taxed, on the figures I have given, at about £50,000. It is therefore perfectly obvious that, given the datum line of 1914, all the while you are steadily working to the 1919 figure, which is the really important figure. You have the exemptions granted and the datum line 1914 fixed. Then you have your valuation for 1919, and you have your position ready for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is going to lop off a portion of the War fortune, on which there is absolutely common agreement that it should be done. The point I am trying to drive home is that the 1919 return is the real working figure. Having done all this for the purposes of the War fortune levy, you have your figure ready for handling your levy on capital, if you desire so to do. I hope I am making a somewhat complicated question fairly clear to those who are doing me the honour to listen to me. Take the kind of wealth which would have
to be valued. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the kind of wealth he would have to value for the purposes of the War fortunes tax would be almost identical with the kind of wealth he would have to value for the purposes of the capital levy. I suppose that, in classes, it would run something like this: Stocks, funds, and shares; cash at home and in the bank; money on mortgage and mortgages; insurance policies: trade assets, book debts, and things of that kind; household goods on a big scale naturally would come in; agricultural land, house property, business premises, and ground rents; and then the all-embracing term "other property." The real difficulties arise, of course, around such items as trade assets and the last item, other property. The point I am making is that you have to value these things for the War fortunes tax, and that you have to go through precisely the same operation for the capital levy. Having set it up for one, at any rate you are fully qualified to express an opinion on the other. Let me try to make another point on the question of collection. That, of course, is always a very difficult matter. Once you have your data on the lines I have already indicated, assuming that I am fairly correct, I do not see much difference in the trouble of collection between collecting for a capital levy and collecting for a war fortunes levy. They appear to me to be practically identical.

My final point is the question of the desirability as distinguished from the possibility of the matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Board of Inland Revenue always have to consider the question of possibility. Desirability is a very difficult question and one which causes every Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Board of Inland Revenue the gravest concern. Apart from the great question of the shaking of commercial credit by a capital levy in its broad aspect, the difficulties which are anticipated by the subject who is to be taxed, and the deflation of credit which is bound to follow from either proposal—we must face that; the taxation of war fortunes is bound to exercise a very disturbing effect upon important kinds of credit—it is all a question of the balance of advantage. It is the old question, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, is it worth while? You may have your tax and all
the machinery, but is it worth the disturbance? That is one of the most important questions every Chancellor of the Exchequer has to address to himself. I am suggesting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that under the imposition of taxation on war fortunes there must be a large amount of disturbance, as, of course, he knows. The enquiry into that, except as to scale, would be precisely the same kind of enquiry which the Committee will address themselves to in regard to the capital levy.

I sum up what I have endeavoured to put before the House by saying this: Upon all these points the Committee now to be set up could ascertain this data and other data, all of which are applicable to the ascertaining of the data necessary to form a considered and responsible report upon the subject of a capital levy. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be very unwise in the present state of the public discussion of this question of a capital levy to leave out the consideration of it by the Committee. This question has become a veritable football between the contending parties at bye-elections. On the one side people are discussing it as a sort of infallible, swift-moving remedy, almost of a quack nature. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am not expressing my opinion on it. Personally, I do not think it is. My view is that it is a very serious proposal and must be considered as such. On the other hand, you have an unthinking denunciation of the whole thing. You cannot have anything much worse than that sort of position. I am certain that a report from this Committee, composed of hon. Members who combine amongst themselves all the qualities which have distinguished responsible Committees in this House in the past, and such a Report delivered after they have reported on war fortunes would have an educative effect on the whole country and would be most valuable in the discussion of this subject, because the discussion is going to continue. There is no doubt about that. It cannot be dismissed by a mere denunciation, nor will the people of this country allow it to be applied without proper discussion. Here is an opportunity for considering it which I urge upon my right hon. Friend. It will be a good thing for the body politic in all respects that this Committee should apply their minds and use the informa-
tion which will speedily be at their disposal for giving this House and the country a considered Report not only on the taxation of war fortunes, but also on the practicability or other wise of a capital levy.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "Further," to insert the words "after submitting the foregoing report."
It has been frequently stated from these benches that the Labour party are in favour of a capital levy. I do not think that the country will be able to come through its financial difficulties except by the imposition of some such levy. I have no objection, therefore, to the Amendment that has been proposed provided that it is made perfectly clear that its acceptance by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be used as an excuse for holding up the Report of the Committee on war profits. The Amendment does not make that clear, and it is so vital that it should be made clear that I have moved my Amendment on the point. Unless my Amendment is accepted, it is possible that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman may be used as an excuse for holding up the Report on war profits for an indefinite period. That would be a mistake. I do not know whether the Committee to inquire into war profits will be able to get through their work in time to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with the Report in the next Budget. I hope they will; but if they were to inquire into the possibilities of a capital levy and not to submit any Report until they had inquired into that question, there would be no chance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer bringing more grist to his mill in the shape of a con siderable portion of the profits that have been made during the war. My Amendment makes the position perfectly clear, and will not endanger the issuing of the Report of the Committee on war profits at the earliest possible moment.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I accept that Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That those words, as amended, be there added.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): My right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) has rightly said that the proposal on which he desires that inquiry should be made by this Committee is one of great gravity, raising large and most important issues, profoundly affecting not merely our national finance in the narrower sense, but the whole structure of our credit upon which our national enterprises and our ability to carry our burdens and face our difficulties depend. Like him I hope to confine myself strictly within the rules of order, and I am therefore precluded from going into the merits of the proposal at the present time, but I am glad to have the recognition on his part that this is a very serious proposal, and I recognise that he has never committed himself to this, that he has never expressed an opinion one way or the other on the merits of the proposal, but has only said that it should be the subject of inquiry by this Committee. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) who followed him, of course, adopts a different attitude. He has no objection to an inquiry, but has made up his mind beforehand. I am not complaining of my right hon. Friend, because I also have admitted to the House that I have made up my mind. I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend any more than I has made up his mind without giving the matter the best consideration which he could, but obviously the plea for inquiry comes with much more force from a gentleman who has no convictions than from a gentleman like the right hon. Gentleman, who, whatever be the result of the inquiry, has reached a foregone conclusion which will not be altered by the Report of the Committee. That is the only difference between my two right hon. Friends in regard to this particular matter. My right hon. Friends who moved the Amendment asks for the inquiry to be held into the possibility and desirability of a general levy on capital for a specific purpose, namely, to reduce the National Debt. My hon. and right hon. Friend does not ask it for that purpose only. He does not limit the capital levy to making a reduction in our War debt, but he and the party to which he belongs—if I am misrepresenting him he can correct me—at any rate many members of the party to which he belongs are in favour of a capital levy, not once but repeatedly, not merely for the specific
purpose of reducing the National Debt, but for the purpose of finding funds to carry out various large and costly schemes which they desire to see undertaken by the State.

Mr. ADAMSON: Will the Chancellor tell us what are the sources of his information?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It was one of the right hon. Gentleman's followers sitting behind him who, when challenged by me when we were discussing this, affirmed by repeated cheers that the object of himself and his friends was not a single capital levy but that when they had once proved that it could be done they meant to come again and have a follow. They saw no reason for discontinuing until such time as wealth had been redistributed according to the best Socialist or Communist model, and my right hon. Friend knows that that is commonly supported by those who support him with more or less warmth throughout the country. The proposal of a capital levy for the specific purpose of my right hon. Friend the mover is one thing. The desirability of using capital to meet your current expenditure is quite a different proposition. If ever this matter should be inquired into I do not think that you ought to have the limiting words of my right hon. Friend, but you ought to consider the whole possibility and the consequence to which it is likely to give rise. I pass to consider the specific argument which my right hon. Friend addressed to the House for referring the matter to this Committee. It was—I think I summarise it fairly—that the issues involved in the two forms of tax were so similar that an inquiry into one covered at least the major portion of the ground of an inquiry into the other.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The data ascertained.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That the data that it was necessary to ascertain in the course of an inquiry into one were practically the same data that were required for the inquiry into the other. I do not want to prejudge the course which the Committee may think it right to adopt. They may follow the programme which my right hon. Friend has sketched for them. I confess that as I thought about that inquiry it has seemed to me that they
would proceed rather differently. To that extent, if I am right, my right hon. Friend's hypothesis would not hold good. But, grant for the sake of argument that a great deal of the inquiry conducted into the taxation of War profits would be useful for an inquiry into the advisability of a general capital levy. In so far as that is so, if the House at some future time desires to hold an inquiry into a general capital levy, all that information will be available. It will not be lost. It will not disappear into space and the new Committee, whenever a new inquiry is started, will have before it at its start all the information collected by its predecessor. What I am chiefly concerned with at the present time is to get immediately the results of inquiry into what is certainly the more generally agreed proposal and the more immediately urgent proposal and what is in itself a sufficiently extensive and sufficiently difficult subject to take all the time that this Committee can give before the moment comes when, if we wish to legislate this Session, that legislation must be proposed. My right hon. Friend has appealed on public grounds, but I regret greatly that he has felt compelled to put down this Amendment, and that owing to this Amendment on the Paper we were unable to get the Committee going before the House rose. The House knows—I make no secret of it—that I am opposed to a general capital levy. The House knows that for reasons which it will recognise, such us my own personal honour as a public man, I could not be the instrument of a general capital levy, and if the House wants it it must find another instrument But I do want to make the levy on War wealth.
If I can find a practicable, just and manageable way of doing it I want it. I think we all want it; I am not passing any moral judgment on accretions of wealth to any particular individual during the War. In some cases those accretions of wealth were unavoidable, if the individuals did their immediate duty to the country in the circumstances of the time. In a large number of cases, in my oinion in the vast majority of cases, there is no possible moral stigma attaching to them. There are a few cases where wealth may have been acquired by evasion of the intentions of Parliament when it imposed the Excess Profits Duty, or cases which are under
moral censure. The justification of this proposal is that at a time of great stress and when great sacrifices are demanded of everyone, certain people, those people who have had an unexpected accretion of wealth, may rightly be asked to contribute not merely in proportion to the contributions of their fellow-citizens who have had no such accretions, but to make an additional and a special contribution. I think it is perfectly fair. I think that so stated the proposition, if practicable, if contained within limits which will not shake credit and which will not lead to a disturbance of our general position—reference has been made to the effect of deflation; let me say, therefore, that it should not lead to deflations of so sudden a kind as to be catastrophic—if it is practicable in point of machinery, if it can be carried out with reasonable security that those who are made subject to the tax have to pay the tax; in other words, if you can make your law effective when you have passed it, and if you can do these things without inflicting so much individual hardship in other cases as to counterbalance all the advantages, then it is very desirable that we should do it; and if we are to do it it is very desirable that we should do it at the earliest possible moment, and put an end to all the uncertainty which will continue as long as the matter is still in doubt.
I want to be able to deal with it in the next Budget. I think hon. Members must feel for themselves that the difficulties surrounding such a proposal are immense. I think they are greater than the difficulties surrounding any fiscal proposal which has ever come before this House. My right hon. Friend discussed not a few of them. I am not going to elaborate them. There is work for this Committee sitting almost de die in diem for such a time as we can allow if they are to report a practical scheme to the House in time for embodiment. I do not want them to be distracted. I do not want them half-way-through to say "Well, after all, would it not be easier to tax all capital than to face these difficulties?" and though you may order them to report on the one subject first and defer the other report until later, if you remit both subjects to them I venture to say there will be such an extension of their inquiry as would make it prolonged and our chance of being able to legislate in the coming Budget would be very much less. Even if the difficulty be
exaggerated in my own mind, I am going upon the assumption that the Committee, who will find ready very able and rather intricate memoranda prepared by the Board of Inland Revenue, will be able to recommend the taxation of war-wealth to the House in all its main outlines. I should like to see them produce the clauses of the Bill, because that is the real test for a proposal of this kind.
I am going on the assumption that they will be able to do that, and that we shall find ourselves in possession of a scheme which is practical, and which we shall immediately set ourselves to carry through the House and pass into law. If we do that the work of the Inland Revenue will be only just beginning. The task of putting them into execution will be infinitely difficult, and to ask, at the very moment when the Budget is going through the House and I shall require, in all probability, all the assistance of the Inland Revenue here in connection with the Budget proposal, as is always the ease, that they should also be in attendance on this Committee, and that when the Budget is through and their first business is to put this new machinery of taxation into order and gather the very considerable sum which all of us hope to get—to ask them to go into the intricacies of another method, is really, I think, to risk your success with the war profits taxation while you are chasing the shadow of a capital levy. We shall have quite enough to do, and it would be better to concentrate upon that on which we are all agreed and to make that a success before we embark on new inquiries and wider and perhaps more difficult proposals.
The whole world is suffering to-day from want of capital: for the immediate needs of the world there is insufficient capital. You cannot create more capital except by saving, and it is therefore urgent hero and everywhere that the people, the Government and the individual, should check extravagance in all forms and wherever possible reduce unnecessary expenditure, avoid the purchase of unnecessary articles and save capital, to be a solid backing behind the inflated credit which the War has left to us, and provide a means for that great expansion of industry and of production without which the world cannot carry the vast burden which the War has laid on it. I cannot put too high the importance of
this country in particular, though, as I say, the problem is one common to the world as a whole, of encouraging saving. It is not an easy task. During the War, under the impulse of a great national necessity and the patriotism, public spirit and determination of all citizens to do what they could each in his own sphere and in every manner possible, prodigious efforts were made in this direction. With the cessation of War comes a natural relaxation of effort, and here as elsewhere a natural disposition to allow ourselves those luxuries and freedom from which we had been either unavoidably cut off or from which we had unavoidably cut ourselves off. Even in the matter of a levy upon War wealth, one of the considerations which must be present to this Committee is that it is vital that they should do nothing to discourage saving, and that they should do nothing in the case of those who made a special effort to respond to the appeals made by the Government of the day that they should reduce expenditure or forgo luxuries in order to place their money at the disposal of the country, which would make those people feel that they had been induced to save so that thereafter' their pockets might be picked. I think that can be avoided in a levy on War wealth. I believe you can make an allowance and you must make an allowance, though I do not mean to say that the allowance will give justice to each individual case, but you must make an allowance on a generous scale in order to protect yourself against the injury which would be done if you penalised those who were thrifty during the War.
If you are going to talk not merely of this taxation of War wealth but to keep before the eyes of the people, now that the inducement to save is much less—though the need is as great as ever—this idea of a capital levy, once to please my right hon. Friend opposite and repeated thereafter by another party sitting behind him if they ever become responsible, then you are going to strike a blow at investing. Let me say the danger is not imaginary. I do not think anybody could hold my position and sees all that I see and hears all that I hear without feeling that high taxation and, on the top of it, this vague talk of a levy on accumulated wealth are one of the causes of extravagance, and one of the reasons why people
are not saving as it is in the nation's interest that they should save. You want to get that behind us and done with, not that they may be rich, but so that you leave people with no excuse for not accumulating their wealth or adding to their wealth in order that the country may command the resources which are necessary to its development, and through that development be the means by which all our burdens will be lightened and by which we shall eventually find that we have faced our difficulties and met them with much less sacrifice and much less difficulty than some people are now inclined to suppose. Anything which prevents the accumulation of capital is a disaster. It is nothing less and to set up this kind of enquiry now would, I am quite certain, encourage the tendency to spend rather than to lay by, and encourage the tendency, too, in forms which cannot easily be traced, and I have seen signs of that, and encourage all those actions which are least in the interests of the State and least helpful to us in the course we have to pursue.
I have only one other observation to make. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party said that we should have to have a capital levy sooner or later, and that without it we could not face our difficulties. Is he not a little over hasty in forming a judgment of that kind? I do not know whether his information is better than mine, but I, at any rate, am not driven to the conclusion that we shall have to resort to any such expedient in order to meet the liabilities, great as they are, with which we are confronted. I think the signs of the time are reassuring. Trade is good; the export trade is reviving; the very fall in the exchange, which in many ways hits us very hard as great purchasers of American produce, is in itself a great bounty on our export trade, and is bringing orders to our doors which otherwise would never have come here. We want to take full advantage of that; we want to expand all our means of production to the utmost of our capacity. That is the way we have met the difficulties of the past. That is is the way we overcame difficulties generation after generation, and difficulties which to the generation which incurred them seemed out of proportion to our capacity to bear, and difficulties which they thought had laid us low and destroyed our prosperity for all time. It is
not by rash experiments of a dangerous kind, but by sound methods of finance, encouraging the recuperative powers of the country itself, we shall find our salvation. I believe those measures wisely, courageously and presciently employed will be quite sufficient to carry us through our difficulties and prove once again that the obligations which we undertook we can fulfil, and that the burdens which we shouldered we can carry, so that we, as well as those who look on us from a distance, will be astonished a generation hence at the ease with which we shall have faced the enormous burdens of this War.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. LAMBERT: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, I think, struck the right note of optimism, that we shall carry our burdens, but the immediate object of my rising is to support the principle of an inquiry into a capital levy, and I do so for a reason which I think may appeal to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He spoke of the vague talk of a capital levy and that it was doing a considerable amount of damage to the saving habits of the country. I quite agree with him, and therefore I want to get rid of all this vagueness. I want the thing to have a thorough, impartial, and clear inquiry into its merits and its practicability. I can express no opinion about it, but there has been, no doubt, a great deal of loose talking during the past few months about a capital levy. It has been advocated on a large number of platforms, and these platforms have had a considerable amount of success. My Labour Friends have advocated openly, as one of the main planks of their programme, a levy on capital. Well, I do not think it is possible that with their success at the polls you can dismiss the idea of a levy on capital from the future financial operations, but I do want at this moment, while the whole matter of war fortunes is being inquired into, that in addition to that, and after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had the report of this Committee on war fortunes, that that information shall be used as a basis for the inquiry into the capital levy. I quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we want an immediate report on the war fortunes, but I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking somewhat on the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, but the Amendment has been amended, and at the pre-
sent moment the report on the war fortunes must come first. Therefore, I think that part of the Chancellor's argument rather falls to the ground.
It is a very easy matter to go on a political platform and advocate a capital levy, especially with the contrast and the senseless extravagance we see going on all round us to-day. We see on the one hand vulgar, flaunting wealth wasted, and we see on the other hand grinding poverty, and it is a very easy matter to influence public audiences, that whereas on one side many people have got too much, on the other there are thousands who have got too little. People who can give 5,000 guineas for a motor car—well, I would make them walk for the rest of their lives. My right hon. Friend talked about saving. I am sure that his advice was right, that saving is absolutely essential, but it is not practised all over the country. It is not practised even in my right hon. Friend's own native town of Birmingham. I have a little quotation here which I cut out from this morning's paper, as I thought it might come in handy to-day. Here is a gentleman who describes his experiences in Birmingham last Saturday He says:
The thought of how much champagne is being consumed in the North and Midlands almost makes me reel. On Saturday evening I was dining in Birmingham. I watched the champagne drinkers. It seemed to me that brand and vintage were secondary considerations. The great thing was to pay £2 a bottle.
Those are not the saving habits, I am sure, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to inculcate.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is far too much of that in all classes of the community.

Mr. LAMBERT: I am quite aware of that, but my point is that when people have only 10s. a week to live upon, and others can give £2 a bottle for champagne, the suggestion of a capital levy readily finds favour with those who are poor. I want this thing gone into. I feel sure my friends of the Labour party do not know how much capital is conscribed at the present moment. A man has to pay 6s to 10s. income tax and 40 per cent. death duties. That is an enormous tax at the present moment; it is a very high tax upon industry. But to me it is a question of what is best for the nation, whether you should tax income or capital. I
know full well that this matter of a capital levy is causing a great deal of apprehension amongst many of our most responsible financiers. I heard a gentleman say yesterday, "Why should I save? The Government proposes to take it from me." I think we really ought to go into this matter thoroughly and carefully. I am not sure I agree with the suggestion of a Committee of the House of Commons. I am not sure that Members of Parliament are a right tribunal for enquiring into these very intricate matters. Members of Parliament come here without any test. It might be a good thing to have a test for Members of Parliament, who should have to pass an examination in economics. This question of a capital levy, to me, bristles with difficulties. A valuation has to be made. I should like to have an enquiry as to whether it would be possible to make the valuation, and how long it would take. It would certainly take a very long time. I also agree with an hon. Friend opposite who says it would take a very large number of officials. Land, houses, factories, machinery, ships—everything would have to be valued. Is it practicable? Is it possible? Then there is the question of evasion, which could well form a subject of enquiry. It would afford every opportunity of evasion and penalise the honest. Then I want this question settled from the point of view of national thrift. If you have a capital levy you penalise the man who has saved, and you let off the man who has spent. I came across a ease on Saturday of a schoolmistress who had worked all her life and saved £4,000. She was going to get £200 a year—not very much after a life's hard work—and she asked me, "Am I to have part of this capital taken from me?" I think such people should know exactly what are the intentions of the Government. I am not a skilled financier. It is imperative that we should pay our debts, but whether we should pay them by a capital levy or a tax on income is, of course, a matter which financial experts must decide. But I do press upon my right hon. Friend opposite the necessity of some sort of enquiry. I know he has made up his mind, but if an enquiry by competent people takes place and my right hon. Friend is right, he will be doubly fortified. I do hope he will allow this matter to be gone into. I want to have the
trained minds of men—not wealthy men—applied to it.
There is another question on which this matter of a capital levy and the threat of it may have very grave consequences until it is cleared up, and that on bank deposits. Nothing is more mobile than capital. It can be moved from town to town, and from county to county. Unless this question of a capital levy is cleared up it may have a very disastrous effect upon banking deposits. What would be the first thing to happen from the threat of a capital levy—that the person who wished to avoid it would withdraw his banking deposit.

Mr. CLYNES: Tut tut!

Mr. LAMBERT: My hon. Friend says "Tut tut!" But is it not so.

Commander Sir E. NICHOLL: Very few monied people have deposits.

Mr. LAMBERT: Well, there are £1,100,000,000 of deposits.

Sir E. NICHOLL: In the savings banks, yes!

Mr. LAMBERT: I do not want to enter into argument with my hon. and gallant Friend, but I do say there is a danger, as expressed to me only recently by a gentleman who is very high in the banking world. He feared what might be the consequences on bank deposits unless this question was settled. I want it settled. I have no desire to pre-judge the matter, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made up his mind that he will not have this inquiry, of course, the majority of this House will no doubt support him. I shall regret it, because I am certain that while this question is a main plank in the platform of the Labour party in the country—and great successes have of late been very prominently exemplified—so long, I say, as the question remains a main plank, this threat will be hanging over the country. I should like very much to have it cleared up as soon as possible. I am quite, certain that every man in the House will agree that there is nothing that will discourage thrift so much as insecurity. I hope my right hon. Friend will consent, if not now, to an inquiry. If my right hon. Friend near me goes to a division I shall vote for the Amendment. I hope, however, my right hon. Friend will give us an inquiry into this matter, which has become a burning
question and one of great political importance in the country.

Sir RYLAND ADKINS: The hon. Member who has just sat down said that he imagined every Member of the House would agree with him on one point. We find him concluding by saying that personally he will vote with my right hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, and who preserved a judicious reticence, and my right hon. Friend who seconded, and who if his mind is made up had it even more hermetically sealed. And a resolution of this kind, whatever be its merits, whether it be timely or not, I agree it has a Parliamentary advantage to ask for an inquiry. It enables the asker to defend himself from critics from every point of view. To the devotee of the capital levy he says: "I am asking the Government to grant an inquiry." To opponents of the capital levy he says: "I have asked for an inquiry because, of course, it will show what nonsense the thing is." So he passes on, armed at all points against all critics and all constituents. Although this may be of enormous dialectical importance, is it for the good of the country that at this time, in connection with the War, there should be added an inquiry into war fortunes and an inquiry into a capital levy? Most of us, probably all of us, believe that a capital levy is not in itself and on every occasion wrong per se, but if there is one, time that a capital levy may well seem to be wrong it is after a war like that we have just survived, for the inevitable characteristic is to make large sections of the public richer and other large sections poorer. Those who have been made richer by the War are appropriately a subject for inquiry, but what about those who, through no fault of their own, and owing to the operations of war, have become poorer? We all know of case after case during those five terrible years of people who have had to live upon their capital, who have had to draw out and dispose of their own savings. Those persons who have not been living within very narrow limits cannot be so much impressed by the misery which has come upon those sections of the community which, in ordinary times, are not the least distinguished for thrift or carefulness, or stability of social temperament. Those are the people who have dwindled capital at the end of the War period, just as those who have been concerned with the pro-
duction of new articles have become much more wealthy owing to the War. The moment you put together the proposal for inquiry into the taxation of War wealth and the proposal for the inquiry into a general capital levy, you are mixing up indiscriminately classes who can afford to pay additional taxation, and classes who are in a worse position now than ever to have their capital taken by the State. That is inevitably the effect if the Amendment, with its many-sided charms, is added to the Resolution.
We have been told that there is wide unrest and uncertainty, and that the question of extending War taxation demands to be settled. If you add this Amendment to the Resolution you are largely widening the area of anxiety and unrest and fear, because the moment the House of Commons, with the sanction of the Government of the day, appoints a Committee with the width of reference which my right hon. Friend opposite desires, it will and must be taken as notice to the poorest person who still has a little capital after the War that their little all may be subject to depredations by the State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!" and "No, no!"] I understand the rather painstaking humour of some hon. Gentlemen opposite because it is part of their cue to suggest that no poor person is to suffer. It has already been said that the definition of poverty depends upon the speaker and the audience, and you may very well have cases which it is not in the interests of the State to touch their capital which might appear considerable to others.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is that not a proper subject for inquiry?

Sir R. ADKINS: Yes, it would-be if there is any justice whatever in making a capital levy on those upon whom the War has already produced diminished resources. If hon. Members think that, however much people may have suffered from the War, they ought to be made to suffer still further in the form of a capital levy, then, no doubt, it is a proper subject for inquiry. My first point is that if it is levied after a war which of necessity involves great suffering to people who have already suffered, and which reacts on the national stability and credit, there ought not to be an enquiry at that point and at this time. My second point is that to have it now tied up with the other is to widen the area of anxiety and uncertainty which
we all wish to limit. We all enjoy the spectacle of the two right hon. Gentlemen who, unable to speak in unison, yet in many things speak in harmony. One says, "We want an inquiry, but do not let us have it until we have done the other," and the second says, "Put it solemnly into the Amendment that when you have finished the first task you will begin the second." Is it not better to see the result of the first task before you go on to another, which, if it differs from the first, is much less properly the subject of discussion? If this matter be raised at another time independent of those incidents of a war which make its universal incidence now so especially unjust,' then we shall all be free, whatever our action or speech to-night, to approach the problem in a new light which will be upon it at the time. As a remedy to be applied now to all classes of the community whether they have prospered or not, I believe it to be unjust, and to inquire into what one believes to be unjust is a waste of time and a lowering of morale.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I rise to support the Amendment and I would respectfully submit, in view of the most serious financial position of the country—the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us time after time the tremendous amount of debt which stands before us—that we should not hastily refuse to explore any avenue of possible means of reducing that debt and of establishing the financial stability which we desire from a commercial and industrial point of view. We know that not only those who are charged with extreme views, but also economists of repute and business men of high standing have given their blessing to this proposal. Surely, on those grounds there is reason why inquiry should be made. The hon. Member who spoke last (Sir R. Adkins) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have suggested that the time is not opportune. How often has this House put reforms back because, although they might be good in themselves, the time was not opportune?' The hon. Member adduced as a reason the fact of the War: I submit that to many minds the very fact of the War when the widow's son was conscripted is an additional reason—

Sir R. ADKINS: For taking the widow's capital.

Mr. THOMSON: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to the interruption. If you can conscript human life, surely you have a right to conscript capital. I did not raise the point of the War. It was raised by those who object to this proposal as being a reason why the time is not opportune, and I am trying to show that it is because of the War that there is additional reason why this proposal should be at any rate inquired into. As to whether you would take the widow's mite, which is so often put forward as a reason why the capitalist and the millionaire should not be taxed, as well as having taken the widow's son is surely a question of the incidence of the tax. The principle of the question whether we can establish our financial standing by an Income Tax of 10s. in the £, or whether we can do it better by seeking to write off our capital liabilities by a levy on capital, is, I submit, a matter for this Committee to inquire into. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the one thing he thought was necessary was security. At the present time there is insecurity and uncertainty as to whether there will be a capital levy, and that is acting as a deterrent against saving which would be removed if this inquiry were granted. I submit we ought not to refuse to explore any possible avenues and means of reducing our National Debt, especially as the making of the inquiry would remove insecurity and uncertainty and enable us to get the sound judgment of experts on this very important question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As I listened to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer my hope of getting anything from an inquiry into the increase of war wealth oozed away livery one of the arguments used from the Treasury Bench against a levy on capital could be used against any proposal to further tax war fortunes. The right hon. Gentleman told us it was our duty to expand our trade and to encourage enterprise, initiative and efficiency on the part of business men. But these are the very men who have made money during the War. They are now in the prime of their business connections. They have made a big capital out of the War and they are now busily engaged in increasing that capital and in expanding our export trade. We are told that they are the people we want to encourage. We are all agreed that if we can tax war
profits without damage it should be done, but we are warned that it is our duty to increase our trade and to remove insecurity and apprehension on the part of big capitalists; therefore it is suggested that to talk of depriving them of any of their war wealth would be mischievous. I am afraid that this proposition which has been brought forward by the Government is mere camouflage and that there is no intention of taxing property whether it be capital increased by the War or whether it is general capital to be levied on. I am afraid that the arguments used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be applied against even putting into operation any taxation on the increase of wealth through the War and there will be so many claims for exemption, and the meshes of the net will be so wide, that the men we really want to catch will escape. I hear an hon. "Member exclaim, "Wait and See." The same advice was given with regard to the proposal for a capital levy. We have waited quite long enough, and I think it is time that a committee was appointed. It was a common scandal to see how people grew richer during the War. Why did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer make some preparation to provide such a tax as this while the War was on? His whole attitude makes me think that the present proposal is not seriously put forward by the Government or supported from Ministerial quarters. It is intended simply to keep the people quiet. The proposals are put forward in response to a newspaper agitation, otherwise why have we not heard them long ago? I have no faith in the reception we have had of the suggestion, or the reception the Committee's findings will have. We are met with fair words as regards the war profiteers, but I am afraid the deeds will fall far short of our expectations. It is a great pity that the Amendment is not going to be accepted. I have made inquiries of friends in a position to know, and I am informed that the new proposals to take away war-time increases of wealth will cause insecurity in the business world, and therefore the main argument used, especially by the last speaker opposite, that more uncertainty will be caused if the Amendment is accepted, falls to the ground. There will be great insecurity among the very energetic and efficient business men who have made money out of the War at the
very suggestion of a Committee as things are now. Therefore we may go into the whole inquiry right away. The soundest argument we have had yet is that of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lambert) that if there is nothing in the cry of a capital levy, what are you afraid of? Why not have a Committee of Inquiry as strong as possible, and prick the bubble? What is it that hon. Members object to in it? We are told that apparently we are going to get over our difficulties without any exceptional taxation. I am afraid that is not going to be the case. I should like to see the Government balancing their Budget first; we are yet to have that. Three countries at least are embarking already on this, and we at least must inquire, Italy is having a forced loan; we might even have that inquired into. Czechoslovakia, which is ruled by one of the ablest men in Europe as her President, is adopting the system and putting it into operation, and in Germany, of course, the Weimar Assembly have passed it, so I think at least we must have an inquiry in this country. It must be useful in many ways. It would save time if we should be so unfortunate as to find ourselves in financial difficulties in the near future, which is not at all unlikely. After all, committees' reports are not always at once acted upon. We all recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable" to commit himself to being the instrument for carrying this out, but has he any objection to the Committee giving their opinion? A Committee reported ten years ago in favour of certain alterations in canals and nothing has yet been done. There are plenty of precedents for ignoring Committee's Reports.
The great criticism which is made of the suggestion for an inquiry into a capital levy is that it will not, and is not intended to, be used solely for the cancellation of debt, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made this charge against the Labour party. I have read and heard a great many speeches made from Labour platforms and have read a great many election addresses and I have never yet seen any suggestion of the sort. I believe that an hon. Member nodded his head when that challenge was put from the other side of the House during a Debate on the Budget last Session. I know members of an extreme section in this country are not in favour of a capital
levy per se. They talk about repudiation. That is what one has to face unless our financial house is put in order. I never yet heard the suggestion that a capital levy should be made for the purpose of demobilising capital. I think that is only an argument to discredit the very serious proposals put forward which are supported by many business men all over the country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer declares that the great need to-day is for more capital. I am not sure what he means. If he means more paper, he is wrong. We have all seen in the Press recently reports of the purchases of mills in the North of England at from four to six times their original value. Those are purchases made, not with cash, but with paper. Certain favoured gentlemen have managed to get command of a great deal of credit. Those mills are now obviously over-capitalised, and it will be necessary to charge high prices for the goods they produce, which all the world wants, in order to pay interest on the overcapitalised values.

Mr. SUGDEN: You are quite wrong.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: You (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) know nothing about mills.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Mills are being sold to-day all over the North of England from where I come and of which I think I have a little more knowledge than the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke). If by capital you mean machinery, buildings, and that sort of thing, there is too little, but if you mean paper and artificial credit, there is too much of it. Until we have a bonfire of some of this paper we shall not get straight. The sooner that bonfire is lighted the better it will be for the credit of the world, not only for that of this country. There must be a change in our financial values and in our whole system of taxation. We ask, therefore, for an inquiry. We want to extend the modest terms of reference to the war fortunes tax to the tax on wealth. It is refused. Very well'. I hope the result will not be bad for the whole country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would not be the instrument for putting such a levy into operation. I am not sure that any Member of the present Govern-
ment will be the instrument for doing anything in a very few months. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Look at the bye-elections. There is now a chance of having a Committee of Members of this House set up. No doubt they are distinguished Members. They would have an opportunity of examining this proposal calmly and coolly before there is a danger of a financial crash It is not so much a British question as a European question. At present we are on safe ground. Before long the financial position may become so acute that something of this sort will be imperatively demanded to save our own credit. The whole thing would now receive a fair inquiry, but instead of that we may have another Government which is impressed with the necessity of having a capital levy and which is pledged to its constituents on the subject, and we may get an inquiry which is not so favourable to the vested interests that certain hon. Members may feel they are bound to champion It will be a great pity if the inquiry is refused now that there is a chance of solidifying the position. At present the talk is too loose. There is too much talk about widows' mites, widows' sons and people who have suffered in the War. This is a business proposition: let us tackle it as such. What are hon. Members afraid of? What is the Government afraid of? I am afraid it is no good appealing to the Government. We shall be beaten in the Division; but Governments do not last for ever, and hon. Members may regret not having helped to get an inquiry which might give them extra safeguards and more leniency than they would get from another Government.

Colonel ROYDS: I am not surprised at the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He said this was a matter to be dealt with on business lines, as a business proposition. He started his speech by saying that this Select Committee was a camouflaged Committee and useless to deal with anything, and wound up by asking the House to refer to the Committee the question of a capital levy. I simply rise to call attention to that, and to say how absolutely ridiculous the speech was from beginning to end.

Question put, "That those words, as amended, be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 167.

Division No. 7.]
AYES.
[10.44 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hayward, Major Evan
Robertson, John


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Rose, Frank H.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Royce, William Stapleton


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Cairns, John
Lawson, John J.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cape, Thomas
Lunn, William
Sitch, Charles H.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Chadwick, R. Burton
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Tootill, Robert


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Devlin, Joseph
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth. Bedwellty)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Williams, Aneurln (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Myers, Thomas
Williams, John (Glamorgan, Gower)


Finney, Samuel
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Galbraith, Samuel
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Wood, Major M. M, (Aberdeen, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Onions, Alfred
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Grundy, T. W.
Raffan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Redmond, Captain William Archer
Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Hogne.


Mayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)





NOES


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Greene, Lleut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Gregory, Holman
Morrison, Hugh


Armitage, Robert
Greig, Colonel James William
Murray, Lt.-Col. C. D. (Edinburgh)


Atkey, A. R.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)


Baird, John Lawrence
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Neal, Arthur


Baldwin, Stanley
Guinness, Lleut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hancock, John George
Oman, Charles William C.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hills, Major John Waller
Perkins, Walter Frank


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Hinds, John
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pratt, John William


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hood, Joseph
Prescott, Major W. H.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Purchase, H. G.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Rae, H. Norman


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rees, Sir John D, (Nottingham, East)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Howard, Major S. G.
Reid, D. D.


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster;
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Campbell, J. D. G.
Hurd, Percy A.
Rothschild, Lionel de


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Carr, W. Theodore
Jesson, C.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Casey, T. W.
Johnson, L. S.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Seager, Sir William


Chilcott, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Seddon, J. A.


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanel'y)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kerr-Smlley, Major Peter Kerr
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Courthope, Major George L.
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.)
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Stewart, Gershom


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Sugden, W. H.


Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Denison-Pender, John C.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Taylor, J.


Edgar, Clifford B.
Lloyd, George Butler
Waddington, R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lloyd-Greame, Major P.
Wallace, J.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Lorden, John William
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Forrest, Walter
Lynn, R. J.
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lyon, Laurance
Whitla, Sir William


Gardiner, James
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camichle)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Bas'gst'ke)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Macmaster, Donald
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Gllinour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Macph'erson, Rt. Hon. James I
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Glanville, Harold James
Macqulsten, F. A.
Younger, Sir George


Glyn, Major Ralph
Moles, Thomas



Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Lord E. Talbot and Capt Guest.

Main question put, and agreed to.

Committee accordingly nominated of Sir John Bethell, Mr. Hartshorn, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Macquisten, Captain Moreing, Mr. Murchison, Sir William Pearce, Colonel Sidney Peel, Mr. Pennefather, Lieutenant-Colonel Assheton-Pownall, Lieutenant-Colonel Royds, Mr. Walsh, Colonel Penry Williams, Mr. Wilson-Fox, and Mr. Robert Young.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

Ordered, That Five be the quorum.— [Colonel Gibbs.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).

Ordered, That a Select Committee be' appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the Department of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House.

Ordered, That the Committee do consist of seventeen Members.

Committee accordingly nominated of Sir James Agg-Gardner, Mr. Gwynne, Sir Charles Hanson, Mr. Hogge, Mr. John Deans Hope, Mr. Kennedy Jones, Major Kerr-Smiley, Mr. Macmaster, Mr. Rawlinson, Captain Redmond, Sir Harry Samuel, Sir William Seager, Mr. Seddon, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Mr. William Thorne, Mr. Dudley and and Mr. Tyson Wilson.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

ADJOURNMENT: Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir R. Sanders.]

Adjourned accordingly six minutes before Eleven o'clock.